Hj^n 

H 

^^^^9 

H' 

1 

SrSS 

!w 

I 

9 

b 

|: 

tihravy  of  Che  t:heolo0ical  ^tminary 

PRINCETON  •  NEW  JERSEY 


'd^t' 


From  the  library  of  the  Rev.  Wil- 
liam Park  Armstrong,  D.D, 


V 


\^ 


\^^' 


'Oy. 


'4^^ 


lQ.'i:l 


OLD   TESTAMENI^^^,^^^^^^ 


Canon  and  Philology 


A  SYLLABUS 


OF 


Prof.  Wm.  Henry  Green's  Lectures. 


PRINTED  — NOT    PUBLISHED  — EXCLUSIVELY  FOR  THE 
USE  OF  THE  STUDENTS  OF  THE 


JUNIOR  CLASS  IN  PRINCETON  SEMINARY. 


%\lt  Irmtctoix  grcss: 

C.  S.  liOBiNSOX  «&  Co.,  Steam  Poweh  Pkintkiis. 


J" 


PREFATORY  REMARKS. 


It  is  hoped  that  all  due  allowance  will  be  made  for  the  various- 
inaccuracies  aud  defects  in  these  notes.  They  are  taken  from  the  notes 
of  a  student  of  the  Seminary  who  was  here  several  years  ago,  and  have 
been  corrected  or  improved  as  they  seemed  to  require.  The  abbrevia- 
tions and  the  conciseness  of  statement  are  such  as  are  usual  in  taking 
notes,  and  the  labor  of  correcting  proofs  lias  been  performed  at  odd 
moments  in  the  midst  of  more  essential  duties.  The  Syllabus  is  oflfered 
to  the  Class  under  the  conviction  that  they  will  not  tind  in  them  a  help 
to  negligence  of  duty,  but  an  assistance  to  reaching  a  higher  and  more 
efficient  standard  of  scholarship.  S,  R.  H. 


PREFACE  TO  SECOND  EDITION. 


The  Reviser  wishes  to  add  that  he  has  inserted  into  the  Syllabus 
some  lectures  and  single  arguments  bearing  chiefly  upon  the  advanced 
Pentateuchal  Criticism.  No  greater  degee  of  perfection  is  claimed 
for  it  than  it  possessed  before— merely  an  enlargement. 

Princeton,  Dec.  15th,  1888.  L.  A.  O. 


/A^T*    OLjcxL.     ^^^7  ,ao^  /L^    ^     6-^    u^cc^ 


-*>    fxSL-        - 


[XTRODUCTOEA^ 


O.  T.  consists  of  a  number  of  separate  books  or  treatises 
by  different  authors  over  a  long  period  of  time.  Hence 
the  necessity  for  studying  the  canon.  Canon,  xavcov^  any 
straight  rod  ;  then  one  used  in  measuring,  as  a  carpenter's 
rule  V  then  any  rule  to  tix,  re.<j^ulate  and  determine  other 
things.  We'  speak  of  canons  of  Rhetoric,  of  Grammar. 
"  Canons  "  =  Standard  authors.  Also  "  that  which  fixes 
anything" — hence  the  Alexandrian  Grammarians  applied 
the  word  to  the  classics — thus  in  Gal.  6  :  16  ;  "  according 
to  this  rule,"  no  xav6vi—^o  in  2  Cor.  10:  13.  In  the 
Fathers  we  find  the  words,  canon  of  the  church,  canon  of 
faith,  and  of  the  truth,  &c., — the  bodji  of  Christian  doc- 
trine— this  last  expression  was  first  found  in  Iren?eus.  As 
applied  to  Scripture — inspired  ride  of  faitk  and  practice. 
?JThis  the  modern  use.  The  Old  Testament  canon  consists 
3.  of  those  books  containing  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice 
given  by  God  prior  to  the  coming  of  Christ ;  not  merely  the 
list  of  books — this  is  a  secondary  and  derivative  sense. 

Two  things  necessary  to  make  a  book  canonical — 1. 
Its  authorship  ;  by  inspired  men.  2.  Its  desi(/n  ;  given  to 
church  as  part  ot  her  pernianent  rule  of  faitli. 

The  first  is  not  all ;  all  writings  by  inspired  men  are 
^  not  canonical— See  1  Kings  4  :  32."  "  Songs  by  Solomon  " 
1005;  all  lost;  he  also  spake  much  on  Natural  History, 
&c.  It  does  not  follow  that  all  his  utterances  Vv^ere 
inspired,  nor  that  every  inspired  prediction  was  intended 
to  form  part  of  the  canon.  So  also  as  to  the  writings  of 
Nathan,  Ahija.  Much  that  the  prophets  spoke  was 
intended  only  for  the  existing  generation  and  has  not 
been  kept ;  was  intended  only  lor  a  particular  age  or 
nation. 

The  historical  books  on  which  the  books  of  Chronicles 
are  founded  are  not  in  existence  and  never  were  in  the 


Aa*^ 


-Ut^f  % 


canon.  Decrees  of  Councils  have  value  as  being  the  con- 
current testimony  of  many  from  a  great  region,  thus  giv- 
ing precision,  &c.    ^^^t-«**Y    ^A^Z^   A^t^tL-Z^Z-^T^u-cX-r^, 

But  no  book  ever  in  the  canon  has  been  lost. 

The  church  has  no  authority  to  decide  what  should  be 
/  in  the  canon— it  is  merely  the  custodian  and  witness,  to  keep 
and  testiftj  to  it.  Eomanists  hold  the  former  doctrine. 
Romanists  say  the  authority  of  Scripture  is  based  on  the 
authority  of  the  church,  as  we  have  to  go  to  the  church  of 
old  to  find  out  the  canon.  But  the  church  has  no  existence 
without  the  Scriptures. 

Two  ways  to  study  it. 

(1)  Historically. 

(2)  Theologically,  to  determine  if  correct  on  theological 
grounds. 

Our  inquiry  is  purely  historical.  What  books  have 
been  given  to,  and  from  the  beginning  received  by,  the 
church  as  the  canon  ? 
/iL  "^^^  Greater  difficulties  in  Old  Test.  1.  Great  antiquity,  and 
absence  of  contemporaneous  testimony.  In  N".  T.  each 
book  is  distinctly  marked  as  to  authorship — can  be  refer- 
red clearly  to  an  inspired  author.  But  in  0.  T.  many 
books  cannot  be  traced  to  their  authors.  2.  Entire 
Christian  world  is  agreed  about  K.  T.  canon  :  not  so  with 
the  0.  T.  canon.     Romanists. 

Advantages  for  O.  T.  canon.  X.  Test,  has  borne  inspired 
witness  to  the  other. 

Inquire  into  A.  the  history  of  the  formation  into  one 
volume;  (1)  orthodox  view,  (2)  critical  view,  projected  by 
Dr.  Robertson  Smith.  B.  the  Extent  of  0.  T.  canon,  to 
identify  the  books  which  have  been  and  ought  to  be  in  it. 
This  second  inquiry  has  three  distinct  though  intimately 
related  divisions;  (l)^the  canon  among  the  Jews,  (2)  the 
canon  as  recognized  by  Christ  and  his  disciples,  and  (3) 
that  recognized  by  the  Christian  church. 

A.  History  of  Formations^  (1.)  Presumptive  argu- 
ment, a  priori.  -vWe  may  naturally  expect  that  God  would 
guard  His  revelation  :  that  the  people  would  do  so  ;  that 
if  God  would  reveal  His  will  for  the  permanent  instruction 
of  his  people,  He  would  take  measures  to  preserve  and 
safely  transmit  it;  and  also  that  the  people  to  whom  He 
communicated  it  would  jealously  guard  it. 


tji-i^ 


^    /(^      ^c 


-<. 


t^  ^ 


^i^. 


,^i.f^-<^r^       — 


^:^ 

^^^ 


.^^^^^^i  c 


^^ 


-^i-^H^    ^in^-e^    r\</fU>uC^    A^     Urz^c4^     ^'X     /^^^  /^/S^ 


^^  I^  i  =    -^ 


-^ 


"Tkjq^^co 


duS'M^   .c^-Pt>A  .—    ^ 


CA^^,^-~i.     f~-ip    iyf-  . 


5 

(2.)  Argument  from  analogij^  from  heathen  antiquity. 
The  Romans  had  their  Sibylline  books,  the  Egyptians 
theirs,  deposited  with  priests ;  the  Babylonians,  Pheni- 
cians,  Greeks  had  sacred  books  and  guarded  them  so. 

(3.)  Historical  iXYgwxaawi.  But  we  are  explicitly  informed 
that  such  was  the  case  with  the  Hebrews — Moses  imme- 
diately after  he  had  copied  it,  (for  the  last  chapter  ot 
Deut.,  giving  account  of  Moses'  death,  &c.,  must  of  course 
have  been  added  by  Joshua.  lie  added  also  a  description 
of  the  land — Josh.  24  :  26,)  commanded  the  Levites  to 
put  the  book  of  the  law  in  the  side  of  the  ark  to  be  there 
for  (I  witness — Deut.  31  :  24-26  ;  and  that  it  should  beread 
by  the  priests  before  all  the  people  every  seven  years  at 
the  Feast  of  Tabernacles— Deut.  31  :  9-13 ;  the  future 
king  was  required  to  transcribe  the  law — Deut.  17  :  18. 
Joshua  was  required  to  have  a  copy  and  meditate  iT|3on  it 
— Josh.  1  :  8.  Pentateuch  contains  divine  constitution 
and  laws^— Joshua  the  title-deed  to  Canaan,  Josh.  24  :  26. 
Josh,  wrote  in  the  same  book  of  the  law  of  the  Lord  which 
Moses  had  written  in.  So  other  originals  were  guarded. 
See  also  1  Sam.  10  :  25 ;  if  even  merely  national  papers 
were  laid  before  the  Lord,  surely  care  was  taken  of  Ilis 
word.^  See  also  1  Chron.  25  :  7.  Many  of  the  Psalms  of 
David  were  committed  to  the  chief  musician,  a  priest  in 
the  house  of  the  Lord;  "those  trained  in  songs  of  the 
Lord  were  288  " — 1  Chron.  25  :  7.  Hence  such  writings 
were  preserved. 

iSTo  doubt  when  tlie  temple  was  built,  the  original  copy 
of  the  law  was  transferred  to  it.  Not  disproved  by  1  Kings 
8  :  9,  or  by  2  Chron.  5  :  10.  In  both  these  passages  it 
says  that  nothing  was  in  the  ark  except  the  two  tables  of 
stone. 

This  objection  is  stated  by  some  of  the  early  Fathers 
and  the  later  liabbins.  They  were  doubtless  conversant 
with  the  more  modern  Jewish  custom  of  i)utting  a  copy 
of  the  law  in  the  ark  which  they  have  in  the  synagogue. 
It  was  not  put  in  the  ark  ever,  but  "  alongside  "  or  in 
the  side  of  it.  2  Kings  22  :  8,  shows  that  the  law  was 
treasured  up  somewhere  in  the  temple  until  Josiah's  reign 
at  least  33  years  before  the  exile.  During  the  evil  reigns 
of  Judah  and  Menasseh  worship  had  been  sus])ended. 
When  the  temple  was  burned^it  did  not  involve  the  loSvS 


6 

of  the  law,  even  if  we  disbelieve  the  tradition  that  Jere- 
miah hid  it,  for  it  was  still  in  the  minds  of  the  people; 
and  was  read  to  them,  Neh.  8:1.  Each  king  was  required 
to  have  a  copy,  2  Kings  11:  12.  Wlien  Joash  was  crowned, 
Jehoiada,  higli-priest,  gave  him  "  the  testimony.'^  The 
law  of  God  which  was  kept  as  a  witness.     Ps.  119:  14. 

There  is  a  presumption  that  the  rest  of  Scripture  was 
preserved;  if  the  people  preserved  the  law  of  God,  they 
would  naturally  preserve  also  what  God  spake  through  the 
prophets.  And  the  people  must  have  had  many  copies. 
Sj^nagogues  perhaps  formed  at  captivity  or  later,  but  meet- 
ings were  certainly  held  to  read  the  law,  Isa.  8  :  16.  '*  Bind 
up  the  testimony  ;  seal  the  law  among  mv  disciples." 

Isa.  8:  20— "To  the  law  and  to  the  testimonv."— Isa. 
8:  16;  1  Fsalmy.  , 

These  considerations  prove  the  preservation  of  the  law 
of  Moses  at  least.  The  incorporation  of  the  other  inspired 
books  is  proved  bj  independent  hints  only.  We  have 
evidence  of  this  in  the  frequent  ajlusions  by  succee.ding 
projjhets  to  their  predecessors  in  recognition  of  their 
authorsliip  and  canonicity.  The  Proverbs  not  all  written 
at  one  time  and  in  their  present  form,  but  Prov.  25  :  1, 
must  mean  inspired  men  in  reign  of  Ilezekiaji  completed 
them  by  making  selections  from  extant  writings  of  Solo- 
mon. "  1,  Daniel,  understood  by  the  books,  &c."  Dan. 
9  :  1.  Isa.  34  :  16,  ''  Seek  ye  out  the  hook  of  the  Lord  and 
read."  The  '•  Books  " — a  definite  and  well-known  collec- 
tion, complete  including  Jeremiah  his  contemporary  ^Zecjx_ 
1:4;  7:12.  "  Lest  they  should  hear  the  law,  and  the 
words  which  the  Lord  of  hosts  hath  sent  in  His  Spirit  by 
the  former  prophets."  After  the  exile,  the  law  and  the 
prophets  are  classed  together  as  of  like  authority.  Soon 
after  the  exile  about  400  B.  G.  prophets  and  canon  ceased 
with  Malachi.  Next  proof,  over  200  years  later,  130  B.  C. 
in  prolo^ie  to  the  apocryphal  book  of  Syrach  or  Eccle- 
siasticus  —  speaks  of  O.  T.  books  as  if  collected  and 
arranged  in  three  divisions  —  when  and  by  whom  not 
stated  by  the  author,  but  some  time  before  even  his 
grandfather's  day,  ^' studying  the  lair  caul  the  prophets  and 
the  rest  of  the  books. ^^ 

Josephus,  priest,  born  A.  D.  37,  says  "  there  continued 
to  be  additions  to  0.  T.  till  Artaxerxes  of  Persia  (Esther), 


^  /  


■^ 


^      71^-^j^     C^^JoJ^    C-^^c^-^    _■  ^^y^^^^    tZ^ 


i*^^^    ^-far-x^<:^   *^l 


w^    lV 


^L^^^^j^:^-^ —  o<.  Juu^^^  ^-f--^  ^''^-''-^  ^^^^ 


"^^Aorw 


(Xo 


r  - 


and  then  the  exact  succession  of  prophets  ceased — and 
bence  though  books  were  still  written,  they  were  not  of 
like  authority,  and  none  were  so  bold  as  to  add  to  or  take 
from  '•  the  canon.'  " 

After  this  only  legends  and   conjectures  till  time  ^^      ^  ^     ■ 
Cyril — in  relation  to  the  process  by  which  and  the  time      ^^ln  C^h  *x 
Tvhen  and  by  v.diom  collected.     (The  time  when  and  by       /  jtI^^-t^^ 
whom  they  were  collected  in  one  volume  does  not  affect 
their  authority :  they  have  as  much  when  separate.)     It 
is  supposed  Ezra  put  them  in  their  present  form.     Evi- 
dence   of  this.     1.  Legends   aid.      2.  Esdras — close    1st 
century,  A.D.,  in  chap.  14:  21,  says  the  law  was  burned 
when  the   temple  was,    but    Kzra  by  divine  inspiration 
restored  it,  and  in  40  days  dictated  94  books,  [Ethiopie 
version  (best)  says — 94  books,  vulgate  204] — of  which  24 
to  be  written  and  for  general  circulation  (the  canon),  and 
the  rest  oral,  70,  only  for  the  wise. 

Same  legend  in  early  Christian  fathers,  Clemens  Alex- 
andrinns,  IrentBus,  Tertullian.  They  merely  say  Scrip- 
tures were  lost  and  Ezra  enabled  to  restore  them  without 
the  loss  of  a  single  word  or  letter.  But  no  credence 
should  be  given  this,  except  so  far  as  that  Ezra  did  take  a 
prominent  part  in  collecting  and  editing  the  books  after 
the  exile.  A  tradition  arose  through  Elias  Leviter,  a 
llabbi  of  great  eminence,  about  the  time  of  the  refor- 
mation, that  Ezra  and  the  Great  Synagogue  of  120  men 
-collected  the  canon.  No  foundation  for  this  except  an 
obscure  passage  in  the  Talmud.  2nd  Book  of  Maccabees 
says  Nehemiah  gathered  the  Acts  of  the  Kings  and 
_prophets, — i.  e . ,  historical  and  prophetic  books ;  tlie 
writings  of  David, — i.  e.,  Psalms;  and  the  Epistles  of  tlie 
kings  concerning  holy  gifts  [=letters  of  kings  of  Persia 
(decrees)  which  are  preserved  in  Ezra,]  and  tries  to  say 
when  and  by  whom  diUerent  books  were  introduced  into 
the  canon,  and  then  says  Great  Synagogue  introduced 
books  written  outside  of  Palestine,  viz.,  Ezekiel,  Daniel 
and  the  12  Minor  Prophets — not  clear.  Great  Synagogue 
=a  body  of  men  associated  with  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  in 
oversight  of  the  spiritual  affairs  of  the  nation. 

If  any  weight  is  to  be  given  to  the  traditions  it  is  only 
that  Ezra  and  JN'ehemiah  and  perhaps  others  finally  gath-  ^ 
€red  them  into  one  volume,  and  perhaps  aided  in  multi- 


8 

plying  and  circulating  them.  This  is  probable  from  the 
following  independent  considerations,  derived  from_the 
Scriptures  themselves. 

I.  Ezra  was  a  ''scribe,''  "a  ready  scribe  in  the  law  of 
Moses" — "  a  scribe  of  the  law  of  the  God  of  heaven,"  &c. 
Known  so  before  he  went  up  from  the  Captivity.  He  was 
the  first  of  that  long  list  of  scribes  so  prominent  in  after 
times,  as  custodians  and  servitors  of  the  sacred  text. — 
Nehemiah  8:  4—12:  26  and  36— Ezra,  7:  6,  11,  12,  21. 

II.  The  period  succeeding  the  exile  was  one  in  which 
there  was  great  necessity  and  zeal  for  gathering  and  treas- 
uring all  the  sacred  relics,  institutions^&c.  Ezra_engaged 
in  restoring  temple  services,  &c. 

III.  Order  of  prophets  ceased_yvith_31xilaclii,  who  was. 
contemporary  with  Kehemiah  and  Ezra:  natural]}' gave 
rise  to  desire  to  collect  the  books]  ' 

IV.  The  succeeding  period  was  conscious  that  prophecy 
had  ceased.  I.  Maccabees,  4:  46;  14:  4|;  speaks  of 
perplexity  from  want  of  a  prophet — and  decision  of  diffi- 
cult questions,  if  a  prophet  should  arise. 

V.  Statement  of  Joseph  us,  no  "  additions,  and  no 
change"  from  time  oT  Artaxerxes,  /.  not  only  written 
but  collected  by  that  time. 

jn  VI.    II.   Maccabees,  2:  14,  says  of  Judas  Maccabeus: 

M^^^^-^^"^^^  that  he  was  "restoring  the  things  lost  during  persecu- 
tion :"  means  this  probably — war  with  Antiochns  Epi- 
phanes,  in  his  efforts  to  destroy  the  Jewish  nation  and 
religion.  "  iiVgathered  all  books  lost  by  reason  of  the 
war  and  they  remain  with  us  :"  this  implies  a  previous 
gathering. 

Eecommend — Alexander  on  Canon  (see  evidences) — 
Cano_Q  Wordsworth,  'on  Inspiration  of  the  Scriptures, 
Bishop  Cosi)vs  Scholastical  History  of  the  Canon.  Apoc- 
r3^pha.  Dr.  Thornwell :  arguments  of  Romanists  dis- 
cussed and  refuted.  Smith's  Dictionary :  Kitto  on  the 
canon.    Also  Canon  Westcott  on  the  Bible  in  the  Church. 

The  conclusion  of  all  this  is  that  the  foundation  of  the 
Jewish  canon  was  laid  by  Moses  himself;  that  Joshua 
w-as  added,  and  perhaps  others  as  written  ;  that  the  books 
were  gathered  by  Nehemiah  and  Ezra  shortly  after  the 
return  from  exile;  and  the  h^st  book,  written  in  the  time 
of  ISTehemiah,  was  immediately  added. 


iU^. 


fVt    ^^TA-.^^,^.^-..^^-^     Cfy-ZtA.  cA^i^  ^-ru/Tt^i^  f^   ^^ 


oe-^CAj 


^A^-  ^u^    UvJ-   vKj^4.;_    ,i-r^x^  o:^^  ^ci.^ 

^^^^^^^^^..t^  .         %^u^^       ^^-t^c^    .^^^tH'L^         W-e*:^^       ^^crwX- 


{ZMXk^O>      ^J^?^^'^^^-      -"^^^^  A^-^-f"      /^J-t^^r-L^xTy^      -W-W^p-^-.-'lAA^ 


*^ 


9 

2.  Critical  Theory. — The  collection  of  the  canon  was 
gradual,  and  the  three  divisions  mark  three  distinct  periods. 
Prof.  Ixobertson  Smith  holds  that  the  canon  of  Lzra  was 
simply  the  Law — then  the  prophetical  books  and  the  his- 
torical were  gathered  and  subsequenlly  arranged;  finally 
the  Kethuvim.     Arguments /or  the  theory. 

T.  The  collection  must  have  taken  a  long  time. 

II.  The  divisions. — Law,  Prophets  and  llagiographa 
show  that  the  divisions  were  the  result  of  different  periods  ; 
e.  g.,  we  lind  Kings  among  the  Prophets,  and  Chroni(;les, 
its  counterpart  among  tlie  llagiographa. 

III.  Internal  evidence  sliows  that  the  canon  was  not 
completed  at  the  time  of  Ezra  and  Xehemiah.  Some  of 
the  poems  were  wj-itten  at  the  time  of  Mac,  as  was  also- 
the  book  of  Daniel. 

Reply. — A.  The  theory  proceeds  on  a  false  vie\y  as  to 
the  aim  and  collection  of  the  canon  in  tliat  its  aim  is  to 
collect  <'i/^  reliofious  Jewish  literature.  They  aimed  to  col- 
lect certain  well-known,  and  generally  received 'canonical 
books.  There  was  no  search,  no  uncertainty  as  to  whether 
they  had  all  the  remains  of  Hebrew  literature  prior  to  a 
given  date.  The  aim  was  to  collect  the  canon.  The 
question  is  what  it  pretended  to  be,'  not  what  it  is. 
Ske[)tics  say  all  old  writings  are  in  a  sense  inspired. 
Tiiis  work  was  to  put  together  all  that  were  known  to  be 
inspired. 

a.  0.  T.  claims  to  be  the  inspired  word  of  God. 

b.  All  Jews  regarded  them  as  inspired,  and  not  a  mere 
collection  of  old  literature.  Even  the  Apocryphal  writers 
affirm  this.  IS^  T.  refers  to  O.  T.  as  the  word  of  God. 
0.  T.  does  not  contain  (dl  Jewish  writings  prior  to  their 
collection.  It  was  not  so  designed.  Chronicles,  the  latest,, 
mentions  some  books  then  extant  which  did  not  perish  at 
the  time  of  the  collection  of  canon,  yet  they  are  not 
incorporated  in  it.  These  books  are  now  lost ;  e.  //.,  Ahijah, 
E'athan,  etc.,  but  could  not  have  been  lost  before  the  time 
of  collection  of  the  canon.  So  the  O.  T.  was  not  designed 
to  be  a  complete  body  of  Jewish  writings.  Apocrypha 
furnish  no  evidence  of  inspiration,  hence  not  incorporated. 

B.  Xeh.  8:10  shows  that  Ezra  had  canonical  books. 
Prof.  Smith  says  merely  the  Pentateuch.  We  have  equal 
reason  for  includino;  others.     Prof  Smith  savs  there  is  no- 


HciLti-lo 


m 


10 

4^jL  jr^^,  >5-^~"  clear  principle  of  distinction  according  to  divisions  given  ; 
but  that  they  are  confused.  There  is  no  evidence  of  dis- 
tinction from  inherent  reasons,  but  confused  because  col- 
lected at  different  times.  First,  the  Law ;  second,  the 
Prophets;  and  finally  the  other  books  were  collected  and 
a  third  division  added  including  all  newly  discoverd 
books.  This  theory  said  to  be  confirmed  because  there 
are  books  in  the  third  that  belong  in  the  second,  and  vice 
versa;  e.  g.,  Dan.  is  in  third,  should  be  in  the  second; 
Kings,  in  second,  ought  to  be  in  the  third ;  loliy  is  Chron- 
icles in  the  third  ?  unless  when  these  books  were  dis- 
covered the  canon  was  already  closed,  so  they  were  put 
into  a  new  division. 

This  theory  does  not  account  for  the  phenomena  it  was 
iiiiended  to  explain. 

a.  No  canon  can  be  said  to  be  closed  until  it  contains 
all  the  books  it  is  intended  to  contain. 

b.  It  conflicts  with  the  facts.  The  Psalms  were  in  use 
from  the  l:)eginning  of  time  of  second  division.  Why  not 
in  the  second  division  ? 

c.  The  principle  of  arrangement  is  easily  explained. 
f    'f\^    The  Rabbins  say  that  the  Law  was  written  by  Moses,  who 


fli.f^^^^pok( 
/  privil 


IM^^  ^  A.#^^^^"^spoke  face  to  face,,  with  God ;  he  stands  alone  in  this 
j^njX  ^  I  privilege.     The  prophets  were  officially/  inspired  of  God  and 

^     ^--^  so  next  highest  in  grade.      Hagiographa  was  not  written 

by  the  officially  inspired  prophets,  but  by  men  under  the 
influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  not  officially  inspired.  It, 
therefore,  occupies  the  third  place.  It  was  held  by  Rab- 
bins that  there  were  three  degrees  of  in-piration.  The 
real  division  was  based  on  the  ofiicial  character  their 
authors  and  the  writings  themselves' were  called  upon  by 
6rod  to  sustain. 

1.  Moses  was  a  legisla^r.  unique:  and  stood  alone. 
His  writings  are  the  Law,  and  so  stand  in  the  highest 
place  as  most  essential. 

2.  Prophetical  books  were  written  by  prophets  who 
were  to  labor  among  the  people  officially,  and  they  stand 
by  themselves  whether  prophetical  or  historical,  and  so 
occupy  the  next  highest  grade. 

3.  Other  inspired  writers,  yet  not  prophets  in  the  full 
sense;  e.  g.^  David,  Solomon,  etc.,  yet  wrote  prophecies. 
These  are  classed  in  the  Hagiographa.     Daniel  did  not 


^vu^. 


^^H   c>^»r>«^  ^ 


<ylc^^Cf  ^  /iUi-  ^>-.  ru^.   ^  ytT  f^'i..    gt^^  ^^^ . 

7kj^    /6X:^_c    <5-^tx;:^  cc.-^^    ^CATin     t^^^^ju^^v^    ,^_. 


^*Sa^--.^<,/      /U^     ,,:<..,5h7.      Z-^e^c       Uyii^^^^:^^  .   /^  f^cf^-A.^ 
•""^^^  /tw-C^^      C^f^^rxA^  i^^^r^fc^*,^    <=^ 


/7       /4ftr^^<:      «-        " 


11 

labor  among  the  people  as  did  Jer.  So  not  really  a 
prophet  in  the  sense  this  latter  was.  Chronicles  were 
probably  written  by  Ezra,  and  King's  by  some  prophet 
and  classified  accordingly.  *  Lamentations  alone  embar- 
rasses this  theory.  It  was  written  by  Jeremiah,  and  was  I 
probably  formerly  attached  to  the  book  of  Jer.,  and  sepa-  q 
rated  by  reason  of  its  poetical  character. 

C.  It  is  said  that  some  books  were  not  written  until 
the  3rd  Century  after  Ezra  and  INeh.  Prof.  Smith  says 
Psalms  belongs  to  the  time  of  Mac,  and  book  of  Daniel 
to  the  same  period. 

But  this  has  no  historical  basis,  a.  Ablest  critics  deny 
the  late  date  of  these.  Daniel  was  written  long  before 
the  time  of  Maccabees. 

b.  This  theory  contradicts  the  prologue  to  Syrach  writ- 
ten 130  B.  C.  The  translation  says  the  canon  was  studied 
by  his  grandfather  (167  B.  C.) 

c.  This  view  is  inconsistent  with  Josephus,  wvho  says /Sa^jT  .  Vn 

the  canon  was  closed  at  the  time  of  Artaxerxes  (465  B.  (3.) 

Josephus  and  Syrach  are  not  the  only  historical  proof  of 
this.  There  are  other  sources  of  confirmation  with  noth- 
ing to  oppose  them  but  critical  suggestion.  Against  it 
we  cannot  show  that  Ezra  collected  the  canon.  Some 
object  to  Josephus  saying  he  identifies  Artaxerxes  with 
Ahasuerus.  But  (1)  if  canon  was  finished  in  time  of 
Xerxes  it  was  earlier  still  and  the  evidence  stronger.  (2) 
That  Josephus  was  inaccurate  in  smaller  things  does  not 
prove  that  the  main  statement  was  inaccurate.  Olshausen 
ventures  to  assert  that  the  prologue  to  Syrach  is  not 
authentic,  but  all  other  critics  accept  it. 

B.   EXTENT  OF  CANON.       ^         . 
I.    Amon(}  tue  Jews.       ^ 

Determine  preciseli)  v^hat  books,  and  identify  them. 
Jews  are  now  all  agreed,  and  the  unanimity  exists  as 
far  back  as  we  can  trace. 

The  Talmud, — a  record  of  O.  T.  tradition — at  least  be- 
fore the   5th  cent.,  gives  a  catalogue  of  them  in   three 
j^.  classes:  Law,  Prophets  and  Kethuvim,  otherwise  called 
UJ^  Hagiographa,    Aycoyftaip-fj  —  sacred    loritings  (Kathabh=to 


12 


write).  Just  the  books  we  find  in  our  Bibles  are  given 
here— Law,  5.  Prophets,  8.  Hagiographa,  11.  (Talmud) 
— 24  books  in  all,  according  to  the  number  of  Greek 
letters,  Samuel,  Chronicles  and  Kings  being  each  one 
book,  the  "twelve  minor  prophets"  one,  and  Kehemiah 
and  Ezra  being  c)ne.  TTomeric  Books  numbered  by  Greek 
letters. 

Josephus — Born  A.  D.  37 — priest,— lived  in  Jerusalem, 
a  Pharisee.    Had,  therefore,  a  good  opportunity  of  know- 
ing: discussions  with  Appian  only  gives  their  number,^ 
not  their  names,  and  describes  them.     His  testimony  not 

rl-,    *"SC/     ^^  explicit  as  Talmud,  not  giving  names,  but  they   are 
^.^^^  ^^JX^described. 

^  ^  FO  He  gives  only  22  Books,  the  number  of  the  Hebrew 

letters,  attaching  Kuth  to  Judges,  and  Lamentations  to 
Jeremiah.     This  is  frequently  done.     Three  classes: 

I.  5  books  of  Moses. 

II.  13  books  by  Prophets,  from  death  of  Moses  to 
Artaxerxes. 

III.  4  Hymns  to  God  and  precepts  for  the  conduct  of 
human  life.     This  was  perhits  gotten  from  the  Talmud. 

I.  Same  as  usual. 

II.  Historical  and  Prophetical  books;  Joshua,  Judges- 
and  Ruth,  Samuel,  Kings,  Chronicles,  Ezra  and  I^^ehemiah, 
Esther,  Job,  Isaiah,  Jeremiuh  and  Lamentations,  EzekieL 
Daniel,  Minor  Prophets. 

HI.  4    Hymns:  —  Psalms,    Proverbs,   Ecclesiastes  and 

Songs   of  Solomon.     Therefore,    no   apocrypha   quoted. 

We  can  prove  it  from  his  works,  also.     Job  and  the  three 

books  of  Solomon  onlji  are  not  quoted;    Job  was  outside 

the  Jewish   people^and   so  neither  Job   nor  Solomon'^ 

I  books  related  to  line  of  history  :  but  they  are  all   needed 

""^  I  to  make  out  the  number  22.     Josephus  nowhere  makes 

use  of  or  quotes  anj^  one  of  the  Apocryphal  books. 

I  We  might  prove  it  also  by  the  early  Christian  fathers 

who  made  careful  enquiry.     In  later  account  of  canon  as 

,       received  by  the  Christian  Church. 

^'  0^4-^  ^^^^^^^"^  General  Agreement./^The  canon  could  not  have  been 
5  ^'^^U^^^^^  corrupted  before  the  close  of  O.  T.,  for  an  uninterrupted 
/^..  .^  O^-^-'^^M  succession  of  inspired  men,  the  prophets,  would  most 
certainly  have  exposed  it.  There  was  a  general  agree- 
ment as  to  the  number  of  the  books  and  also  their  names. 


13 

Since  then,  the  extreme  reverence  in  which  it  has  been 

held  by  the  Jews  would  not  permit  it ;  not  to  speak  of 

the  fact  that  an  authentic  co[)y  was  kept  in  the  temple 

after  the   exile  also.     Josephus  says — "  IIovv  firmly  we 

give  credit  to  those  books  is  evidenced  by  what  we  do, 

for  we  willingly  suffer  and  die  for  them,  and  none  are  so 

bold  as  to  add  to  or  take  therefrom.'"     There  can  be  no 

intelligent  dispute  about  the  authenticity. 

^         As  to  safe  handing  down,  even  the  Romanists  admit  it. 

,  7^-.But_  does  the  canon  contain  all  ?     Romanists  say  "two    /^ 

^'-"'^  canons — one   restricted,    the    other   enlarged — Protocan-__  Y^ 

onical  and  Deuterocanonical,  of  like  authoritv."_^ 
^^^    Of  the  later  7  are  entire  and  there  are  parts  of  two 
-^    others — Tobit,  Judith,  Wisdom,  Ecclesiasticus  or  Sirach, 
S^    Baruch,  1st  and  2nd  Maccabees:  with  chapters  added  to 
Esther  and  Daniel  in  the  Greek  and  Latin  bibles,  1st  and 
2nd  Esdras  not  recognized  by  Romanists.     ''  First  canon 
erlier,  2nd  later — no  difference  in  authority  and  inspira- 
tion."'    Some  distinguished  Romanists  say  they  "  differ  in 
grade  of  authority,  though  both  inspired."     But  this  is 
absurd,  gives  up  the  point. 

In  favor  of  the  second  canon  they  say  the  canon  being 
closed  at  the  time  of  Malachi,  all  inspired  books  of  a  later 
date  had  to  be  put  in  a  second  canon. 

Skeptical  waiters  say  the  limitation  of  first  canon  was 
simply  a  matter  of  time;  and  was  only  a  collection  of  early 
Jewish  writers.     But, 

1.  Kot  literary.  Ignores  the  character  claimed  and 
accorded  to  them  from  the  beginning.  All  Jewish  authors, 
Baruch,  Josephus,  Philo.  iST.  T.  writers  say  they  wpre 
from  God. 

2.  The  0.  T.  did  not  in  fact  contain  all  the  extant  writ- 
ings. Chonicles,  one  of  the  latest  O.  T.  books,  mentions 
several  histories  and  works  as  extant ;  viz.,  Nathan,  Gad, 
Ahija,  Iddo,  &c.  The}^  are  not  known  now  in  the  canon 
because  not  in  the  canon  then  and  not  jealously  guarded  since  ; 
and  not  because  they  had  perished  at  the  time  the  canon 
was  made  up. 

The  apocryphal  books  are  refused,  not  because  after  a 
certain  date,  but  because  not  inspired.  Josephus  says  after 
Artaxerxes,  prophets  ceased.  This  is  not  an  arbitrary 
date,  but  there  was  no  succession  of  prophets. 


14 

Some  say  Jewish  canon  was  "  limited  by  the  language 
in  which  written,  and  Apocryphal  books  not  admitted 
because  w^^itten  in  Greek,"  But  some  apocryphal  books 
were  originally  in  Hebrew.  Jerome  says  this  of  others. 
See  Jerome,  Maccabees,  Tobit  and  Cyrach. 

Some  say  there  were  two  separate  canons  among  the 
Jews— that,  though  only  one  at  Palestine,  the  Jews  else- 
where, as  the  Alexandrian  Jews,  had  two. 

Xo  authority  for  this  statement.  The  Samaritans,  a 
schismatical  body,  not  belonging  to  the  Jews,  it  is  true,, 
acknowledged  only  the  books  of  Moses,  but  this  was  be- 
cause the  later  books  conflicted  with  their  cherished  views, 
and  not  because  the  Jews  in  general  attached  superior 
authority  to  the  books.  They  had  their  temple  at  Mount 
Gerizim,  and  therefore  refused  to  accept  books  which 
recommended  Zion  and  Jerusalem.  Also  had  much 
intercourse  with  the  heathen  around  them. 

Some  early  fathers  say  the  Saddacees  acknowledged  only 
Moses.  Mistake.  They  confounded  the  Sadducees  and 
Samaritans.  The  Sadducees  rejected  only  tradition,  not 
the  canon.  Josephus  says  22  books  were  accepted  by  the 
nation  at  large,  and  if  so.  large  and  powerful  a  portion  of 
the  nation  as  the  Sadducees  had  not  received  all,  he  would 
have  certainly  mentioned  it.  Had  this  been  so,  Christ 
(Math.  22)  would  rather  have  rebuked  them  for  it,  than 
have  given  way  to  it :  his  design  in  using  it  was  that  a 
reference  to  Exodus  might  show  them  that  the  doctrine 
of  the  resurrection  pervaded  the  entire  Scriptures.  This 
sanctions  oidy  the  Pent.,  but  he  elsewhere  sanctions  all 
the  0.  T. 

^Mustics,  Therapeuta:,  Essenes,  &c.,  accepted  the  canon 
and  merely  added  their  own  views  thereto. 

The  Jews  of  Alexandria  did  have  lax  views  of  inspira- 
tion, but  even  if  they  liad  two  canons,  their  position 
among  the  Gentiles  would  make  us  distrust  any  novelty 
from  such  a  quarter.  There  is  no  proof  that  they  had  a 
different  canon.       t(/Au^ c^  /^~ n=cj'^(^ ^^  jy^/Kf^*~\^ 

1.  These  Jews  also  were  extremely  desirous  of  keeping 
up  intercourse  with  Jews  of  Palestine,  and  nothing  would 
so  effectually  prevent  this  as  introducing  two  canons. 

2.  Translator  of  Syrach  speaks  of  the  book  which  his 
grandfather  used  in  Palestine,  and  which  he  himself  used 
in  Egypt,  and  makes  no  distinction  between  them. 


15 

3.  Josephus  in  his  treatise  against  Appiat),  an  eminent 
Jew  of  Alexandria,  speaks  of  no  difference. 
)  T*        4.  Philp  A.  D.  41 — no  list — no  general   description — ^w^X^ 
t**^  makes  repeated  incidental  reference  to  O.  T.  books,  all 
1 .     same  as  those  given  in  Talmud,  as  inspired  :  no  mention 
of  Apocryphal  books;   nearly  all  O.  T.  books  referred  to. 
Defense  of  Apocrvhal  books. 

I.  "  The  Aproanjphal  books  are  in  the  SeptuagintJ'     But  ^   -^  ^'^ 
adignorantiam.     (1.)  But  origin  and  even  design  of  Septua- 

gint  is  obscure:  perhaps  merely  literary:  .*.  collect  all 
for  the  Library.  Tradition,  that  it  was  translated  by 
Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  for  his  library.  (2.)  Not  all  pre- 
pared at  one  time,  or  by  one  body  of  translators.  AV^e  do 
not  know  the  exact  time  of  the  compilation.  Internal 
evidence.  Varied  merit  and  ability  of  translation.  Cyril 
says  the  22  were  rendered  by  LXX.,the  rest  by  others.  (3.) 
Apocryphal  books  were  probably  attached  as  appendix, 
as  relating  to  the  same  subject,  and  not  to  anything  in 
profane  history. 

II.  "Accepted  by  Fathers.'' — Consider  this  objection 
later. 

III.  "  Jerome's  expression  that  '  Tobit  and  Judith ' 
ranked  among  the  '  Ilagiographa  ' — and  since  this  was  not 
so  at  Palestine,  must  have  been  so  at  Alexandria."  But 
the  word  Hagiographa  must  be  here  a  corruption  for 
Apocrypha,  for  Jerome  elsewhere   expressly  denies  that 

these  books  were  in  the  Ilagiographa.  _ 

IV.  Prof.  Smith  says  that  certain  portions  of  the  O.  T,     A^  ^^^^  ^/ 
canons  were  fixed  among  the  Jews,  and  that  at  the  time     f^^  '^ 

of  Christ  the  canonical  authority  of  others  was  in  dispute,  """"" 
That  this  canon  was  not  fixed  until  the  close  of  the  1st 
Century  A.  D.  It  was  not  settled  when  the  Books  of  the 
N.  T.  were  written,  and  there  is  no  explicit  testimony  in 
them  given  in  favor  of  the  belief  that  it  was  then  settled. 
There  is  no  dispute  about  the  canonicity  of  the  Law, 
Prophets  or  three  Poetical  Books  (Ps.,  Proverbs  and 
Job.)  The  following  books  of  the  Hagiographa — Songs 
of  Solomon,  Ecc,  &c., — were  later  additions.  Strife  over 
these  books  was  not  ended  until  the  end  of  the  1st  Cen- 
tury A.  D.,  and  the  book  of  Esther  was  excluded  until  a 
later  period. 


16 

This  argument  Prof.  Smith  rests  on  a  certain  expression 
in  the  Tahiiucl — "  Tlie  Holy  Scriptures  defile  the  hands.'* 
It  means  probably  that  the  Sacred  Scriptures  were  so 
holy  the  hands  must  be  washed  before  touching  them ; 
L  e.,  they  caused  the  hands  to  be  considered  unclean. 
Rabbins  say  this  was  an  arbitrary  regulation  to  preserve 
the  Scriptures  from  injury.  They  held  that  they  were 
unclean  or  defiled  the  hands,  to  prevent  them  from  being 
placed  with  the  fruits  and  sheaves  for  offerings,  where  the 
mice  might  gnaw  them  ;  i.  f'.,  they  rendered  impure  what- 
ever they  touched,  even  the  offerings.  At  an}^  rate  it 
was  used  to  express  canonicitv  of  any  boo_k.  To  allege 
that  a  particular  book  defiled  the  hands  was  to  say  it  was 
canonical.  Shammai  and  Hillel  were  noted  Eabbins  of 
about  the  time  of  Christ.  The  school  of  Shammai 
afiirmed  that  certain  books  did  not  defile  the  hands, 
while  that  of  Hillel  afiirmed  they  did.  (The  books  were 
Songs  of  Solomon,  Ecc.  and  Esther.)  But  the  Talmud 
states  that  at  a  meeting  of  a  Synod  about  95  A.  D.,  72 
Elders  decided  that  Solomon's  Songs  and  Ecclesiastes  do 
defile  the  hands  ;  /.  <?.,  are  canonical. 

.But  the  question  really  was:  — 

1.  Whether  the  book  which  was  and  had  been  in  the 
canon  ought  to  be  there,  and 

2.  Did  not  effect  the  canonicity  of  the  books  themselves, 
but  concerned  only  their  contents.  It  was  urged  that 
Ecc.  treats  of  worldly  enjoyments,  and  Solomon's  Songs 
of  worldly  love. 

These  objections  were  overruled  and  the  books  retained. 
They  had  no  more  Aveight  than  Luther's  objections  to  the 
Epistle  of  James,  or  than  any  modern  dispute  in  regard 
to  any  book  of  the  Holy  Writ. 

3.  These  objections  of  the  Rabbins  were  not  confined 
to  what  Prof  Smith  claims,  but  extended  to  Proverbs 
and  Ezra,  &c. 

4.  The  omission  of  Esther  from  Chrysostom's  Catalogue 
does  not  favor  the  theory  of  Smith  because  by  his  own 
concession  the  book  was  definitely  retained  and  the  canon 
settled  long  before  this  Catalogue  was  written. 

It  is  said  that  the  Talmud  pronounces  Baruch  and 
Syrach  canonical.  This  is  denied  by  most  competent 
authorities.     Prof  Scott  says :   JN"ot  a  single  passage  can 


17 

be  adduced  which  proves  the  canonicity  of  Baruch  and 
the  interpretation  which  sanctions  Syrach  is  equally  as 
unfounded.  In  no  place  is  Syrach  mentioned  as  a  book 
of  Scripture.  In  every  place  it  is  excluded  from  the 
cano!i. 

Ba.'uch  sometimes  cited  as,  "  It  is  written,"  same  ex- 
pression used  in  quoting  from  Canon,  but  it  is  stated  in 
this  way:  "It  is  written  in  the  book  of  Baruch,"  and 
therefore  not  cited  as  canonical,  because  even  heathen 
poets  cited  this  way ;  sometimes  quoted  from  memory  and 
sometimes  mistakes  are  made.  In  no  place  in  the  Talmud 
isSirach  spoken  of  as  canonical,  but  affirmed  not  to  be  in 
the  canon. 

II.  The  Ch'isiia/f  Canon — brings  most  decisive  ar- 
gument, though  the  foregoing  is  conclusive. 

The  books  were  recognized  by  our  Lord  and  the 
apostles.  They  recognized  the  same  as  the  Jews.  They 
never  charged  the  Jews  witli  altering  the  letter  of  the  law. 

The}'  sanctioned  the  canon. 

1.  Frove([  negafirely  ;  they  never  charged  the  Jews  with 
corrupting  or  mutilating  the  word  of  God,  though  our 
Lord  says  they  made  it  void  by  their  traditions  and  gave 
erroneous  interpretations  to  it.  He  would  have  reproved 
any  omission  or  insertion. 

2.  Proved  poslticely.  a.  B}i  express  statements.  "  Unto 
them  were  committed  the  oracles  of  God."  Rom.  3:2; 
2  Tim.  3  :  16—"  all  scripture  ",  etc. 

b.  Bij  general  implication.  Appeal  to  sacred  writings  of 
the  Jews,  (1)  as  a  whole, 'as  "scriptures,"  etc.  John  5: 
39;  Matt.  22  :  29  ;  John  10  :  35.  Or  (2)  to  the  three-Mdi 
divisions,  "Law  and  Prophets."  Matt.  5  :  17;  Law  and 
Prophets  used  in  synagogue  and  known  to  people  :  Law, 
Prophets  and  Psalms.  Luke  24  :  44  ;  the  later  for  Hagio- 
grapha,  part  for  whole,  or  because  of  the  prevailingly 
poetical  character  of  Hagiographa,  because  the  Psalms 
especially  testify  of  Christ,  and  is  the  largest  book. 

Luke  24:  27;  Robertson  Smith  says  our  Lord  only 
intended  to  refer  to  certain  admitted,  well-known  parts  of 
scripture;  that  the  canon  was  completed  after  Christ  by 
Sanhedrin  about  close  of  1st  century.  Christ  does  not  refer 
to  Song  of  Solomon,  Esther  and  Ecclesiastcs  because  dis- 
puted.    But,  lst,^not  needed  ;  2nd,^not  censured 


18 


/A.x^ 


And :  1.  He  only  quotes  what  speaks  expressly  of 
himself. 

2.  There  is  an  explicit  statement  in  Luke  24 :  27,  of 
the  three-fold  division  and  that  he  expounded  all. 

3.  Prof  Smith  says  Job  and  Proverbs  are  canonical, 
but  according  to  this  they  would  be  left  out.  He  says 
because  Esther  and  Eccl,  etc.,  not  mentioned  they  were 
disputed.  There  is  no  hint  that  they  did  not  belong  to 
the  canon.    J^o  occasion  for  them  to  be  mentioned. 

c.  By  their  abundant  citations  of  it  as  the  word  of  God 
— of  the  Holy  Ghost — of  inspired  men.  All  the  books 
are  thus  quoted  except  some  minor  prophets  and  it  is  hard 
to  tell  which  definitely.  Ezra,  Xehemiah,  Ecclesiastes, 
Esther,  admitted  not  to  be  quoted. 

Every  such  citation  lends  the  sanction  of  inspiration  not 
only  of  the  passage,  but  to  the  canonicity  of  the  book  thus 
quoted,  and  to  the  entire  volume  in  which  this  bool^  is 
found.  Those  not  cited  are  so  merely  because  there  was 
no  occasion  for  it.  They  do  not  profess  to  quote  all :  it  is 
merely  incidental,  for  the  moment. 

They  take  O.  T.  as  found  among  the  Jews  and  ascribe 
to  it  divine  authority  :  a  most  decisive  proof  that  it  con- 
tained nothing  more  nor  less  than  what  it  should. 

Objection. — "  N.  T.  writers  used  the  Septuagint  version 
and  therefore  sanctioned  all  the  books  which  it  contained, 
including  the  Apocrypha." 

Answer — 1.  They  admittedly  did  not  sanction  its  inac- 
curacies :  no  more  did  they  sanction  its  spurious  additions. 
2.  And  there  was  no  danger  of  their  being  misunderstood 
by  the  Jews  around—  .-.  did  not  expressly  say  they 
accepted  only  the  genuine.  3.  They  never  even  quote 
from  the  Apocrypha — in  regard  to  everv  passage  said  to  be 
so  quoted  it  can  be  proved  (a)  that  there  is  no  such  resem- 
blance, or  (b)  that  the  passage  in  the  Apocrypha  is  itself 
conformed  to  an  O.  T.  passage,  and  this  is  what  is  in 
reality  quoted — or  (c)  even  if  so  quoted  it  njeajjy  affords 
the  historical  proot  of  the  quotaiion  ;  the  apostles  quested 
the  heathen  poets,  but  they  did  not  sanction  them.  Heb. 
11:  35;  refers  to  the  sulferings  of  the  Jews  as  related  in 
Mace,  but  to  the  historical  truth  and  does  not  thereby 
sanction  canonicity  any  more  than  **  sawn  asunder  "  sanc- 
tions the  legend  of  IN'iobe's  death.    4.  They  make  positive 


X    uxL   ise^^Lv 


-<lre^ttX^    iLci^     A^^spt^ 


6o-ec^ 


19 

statements  which  exclude  these  books.  Matt.  11  :  13-14 
and  Mark  1 :  1-2  link  end  of  0.  T.  with  beginning  of  the 
iN".  T. — a  distinct  proof  of  inspiration.  5.  They  do  not 
always  quote  at  all  from  the  LXX.,  but  sometimes  from 
the  Hebrew.  6.  Even  some  prominent  Romanists  them- 
selves have  felt  that  the  Apostles  did  not  sanction  these 
passages.  Some  a&ditions  of  the  Vulgate  give  quotations 
from  O.  T.,  but  not  from  Apocrypha. 

The  0.  T.  canon  thus  sanctioned  is  a  true  one  :  even 
Bellarmine  (a  Romish  authority  ot  note),  acknowledges 
that  none  other  are  canonical. 

III.  Canon  of  Christian  Cliurch.  This  the  Romanists' 
last  resort :  ''  These  books  must  be  canonical  because 
sanctioned  by  the  early  church."  But  this  could  not 
occur  without  the  sanction  of  the  Apostles  and  they  did 
not  sanction  it.  However,  the  Church  might  have  erred. 
It  erred  in  doctrinal  matters  ;  though  here  we  reject  the 
development  theorj',  that  the  canon  grew  with  the  Cliurch. 

Meaning  of  some  ttrms  used. 

Canonical  books— books  ii^spired  of  God,  given  to  the 
church  as  her  rule  of  faith.' 

Canonical  books,  loose  sense, ==books  agreeing  in  gen- 
eral character  with  inspired  books,  orthodox  books. 

Apocrypha— aTToxpuTizco — "  Hidden."  1.  Some  say  this 
refers  to  the  obscurity  which  clouded  their  origin  ;  — false: 
^Augustine,  (quia  origo  non  pariut)  as  regards  their  being 
inspired.  Yet  Samuel,  Kings,  &c.,  have  not  known  au- 
thors. But  Ecclesiasticus  is  known  as  written  by  Jerus 
Son  of  Sirach.  2.  The  contents  of  the  books,  mysterious,* 
as  the  heathen  Eleusinian  mysteries :  not  allowed  circula- 
tion, as  the  heathen  books  (called  xpuTiza)  which  are  intel- 
ligible only  to  the  initiated.  Hence^heathetiish  i.  e. 
heretical  esoteric  writings  unlit  to  be  placed  in  the  hands 
of  Christians  .-.  uninspired.  3.  In  contrast  with  the 
Scriptures,  which  were  read  in  public  worship — which 
hence  =  '' o;;^'??  "  books,  the  others  "  hidden  "==  Hebrew 
g'nuzim  hidden — (But  the  Jews  applied  this  word  to 
obscure  passages  in  the  canon  itself  and  to  uninspired 
copies  of  the  Scriptures  too  full  of  mistakes  to  be  used  in 
the  Synagogue.) 

Apocrypha^  used  by  the  Fathers  in  two  senses.  1.  As 
w^e  use  the  word,=books  claiming  inspiration  and  place 


20 

in  canon  but  which  have  it  not.  2.  Books  of  pernicious 
character  or  forged  to  sustain  heresies.  According  to 
the  latter  sense,  there  were  three  classes  of  books,  (a) 
Canonical  or  inspired,  (b)  Ecdesiastkal,  i.  e.  approved  by 
the  church  for  reading,  or  orthodox=our  Apocrypa  where 
*'  canonical "  is  used  in  its  looser  sense,  (c)  Ayocryphal^ 
books  of  evil  tendency. 

How  are  we  to  tell  which  the  church  did  admit?  A. 
By  catalogues.  B.  By  early  versions.  C.  By  readings  in 
public  worship.     D.  By  quotations  in  the  Fathers. 

A.  Catalogues  of  the  sacred  books — great  authority — 
most  satisfactory  evidence  given  1,  by  the  Fathers :  2,  by 
Councils,  valuable  (a)  as  joint  testimony  of  many  fathers 
collected  from  a  great  extent  of  country,  (b)  Best,  for 
they  used  more  precise  language. 

/Second  Century,  Melito — Bishop  of  Sardis  (the  church 
mentioned  in  Revelation) — oldest  catalogue— A.  D.  160 — 
only  one  of  2nd  century.  It  seems  doubt  had  arisen  about 
the  canon.  He  travelled  to  Jud?ea  and  inquired  care- 
fully. He  opposes  all  but  those  in  the  Hebrew  volume. 
Gives  their  names,  not  their  number.  But  a.  Abundant 
testimony  elsewhere,  and  b.  this  is  not  a  question  of 
dispute.  Romanists  admit  this.  Adds  the  words  jJ  -/at 
ao(fia  after  Proverbs ;  .-.  Romanists  say  it  means  the 
Apocryphal  book  of  Wisdom.  But  the  real  meaning  (fj  xac 
not  xo.t  -fj)  is  "  which  is  also  wisdom,"  referring  to  Pro- 
verbs. Lamentcdions  not  mentioned  :  probably  included 
under  Jeremiah.  Ruth,  with  Judges.  So  Nehemiah, 
probably  included  under  Ezra.  Esther  not  mentioned. 
The  omission  of  Esther  by  Melito  as  well  as  by  others, 
gives  necessity  for  some  canonical  reason  besides  inad- 
vertence. It  is  either  included  with  some  other  book,  as 
Judges  (most  probably),  or,  as  is  mentioned,  from  the 
circumstance  that  in  the  Greek  Bible,  a  copy  of  what 
Melito  doubtless  possessed,  Esther  begins  with  an  apocry- 
phal introduction.  Whatever  explanation  is  adopted  it 
does  not  invalidate  the  argument.  The  Romanists  confess 
to  its  presence  in  the  canon  at  that  time ;  so  does  the 
school  of  Smith — begins  in  Septuagint  with  an  Apocry- 
phal section  and  .'.  Esther  joined  to  Jeremiah;  or  Melito 
inadvertently  rejected  the  whole  of  it,  or  fault  of  tran- 
scriber, or  included  in  another  book. 


21 

Justin  Martyr.  2ncl  century,  died  164  A.  I).  Born  in 
Palestine,  after  conversion  lived  in  Rome.  No  regular 
catalogue.  Quotes  frequently,  but  never  from  Apocry- 
pha. In  his  controversy  with  Trypho,  a  Jew  in  Ephesus, 
he  does  not  refer  to  Apocrypha  nor  accuse  the  Jews  of  re- 
jecting inspired  works,  as  he  would  naturally  have  done 
had  he  believed  those  books  inspired. 

Sjjrktc  Peshito,  2nd  century,  only  included  canonical 
books. 

Tliird  Century — Origen — Greek  Father — most  learned 
of  Greek  Fathers.  Educated  at  Alexandria.  Died  at 
Tyre,  70  years  of  age.  His  catalogue  gives  22  books,  by 
name  in  full,  both  in  Hebrew  and  Greek.  As  preserved 
by  Eusebius  in  his  Ecclesiastical  History,  the  same  as 
Josephus,  and  then  says — "  and  apart  from  these  are 
books  of  Maccabees."  Minor  prophets  omitted,  but  inad- 
vertently, and  not  by  Origen  himself,  for  they  are  found 
in  every  other  catalogue,  and  are  necessary  to  complete 
the  22,  (he  says  22,  and  names  only  21) — .*.  fault  of  the 
transcriber.  The  old  Latin  translation  by  Ruffin  gives  it, 
mentioning  minor  prophets  also. 

Under  Jeremiah  he  includes  Lamentations  and  "  Epistle 
of  Jeremiah.''  This  must  be  either  the  epistle  to  the 
captives  of  Babylon,  Jer.  29;  or  an  Apocryphal  epistle 
given  in  the  Vulgate  as  the  last  chapter  of  Baruch. 
Probable  that  he  was  misled,  for  Origen  follows  the  He- 
brew canon  irrojessedly^  and  this  certainly  never  contained 
it.  But  it  is  easily  demonstrable  that  Jer.  never  wrote 
this  book. 

Jertullian. — 3rd  century — no  catalogue — speaks  of  24 
books  as  in  Talmud.  Tertullian,  oldest  of  Latin  fathers 
whose  works  have  been  preserved  to  us,  thinks  the  num- 
ber 24  refers  to  the  24  wings  of  beasts  around  the  throne, 
and  the  24  elders,  in  Revelation.  .-.  In  2nd  and  3rd  cen- 
turies, we  have  Melito  and  the  Syriac  Peshito  from  the 
Eastern  church;  Origen  from  Greek  church;  Tertullian 
from  Latin  church. 

Fourth  Century. — Corroborated  from  all  parts  of  church. 
Counril  of  Laodicea.     Representatives  from  Asia. 


QM<>JUrp,.^    ^      * 


22 

Athanasius — Bishop  of  Alexandria. 
Cyril —  "  Jerusalem. 

Greek        Epiphanius —      "  City    of  Salamine,  in 

Writers.   -(  Cyprus. 

Amphilochius —  "  Iconium. 

Gregory  of  Naz- 

ianzus —  "  Constantinople. 

Basil  the  Great  of  Cappadocia,  and  Chrysostoin  of  Con- 
stantinople give  no  formal  catalogues  but  equivalent 
statements — the  former  says  the  number  was  22:  the 
latter  says  all  the  books  of  O.  T.  were  written  in  Hebrew 
— .'.  he  followed  the  Jewish  canon. 

f  Hilary — Bishop  of  Poitiers. 

Latin     J  liuffinus —  "      of  Aquileia,  in  Italy. 
Writers,    j  Jerome — Monk   of  Palestine,    (most   learned 
1^  man  of  his  time,  born  in  Dalmatia.) 

Two,  those  of  Athanasius  and  Gregor}',  omitted  Esther 
— explained  as  under  Melito.  Athanasius  even  puts 
it  among  Apocrjqjha,  but  for  the  same  reason  that  open- 
ing chapter  is  apocryphal.  There  is  abundant  evidence 
for  it,  and  Romanists  admit  it.  There  is  abundant  proof 
of  its  canonicity;  the  only  difficulty  is  to  ascertain  clearly 
how  this  difference  happened.  They  reject  whole  of 
Esther,  because  burdened  witli  spurious  chapters.  Hilary 
says  "Jeremiah  and  the  epistle" — (see  Origen) — Athan- 
asius, Cyril  and  Council  of  Laodicea  speak  of  "Jeremiah, 
Baruch  and  the  epistle,"  but  Baruch  may— part  of  genuine 
Jeremiah,  (29. chap.)  which  speaks  of  Baruch  :  may  be 
the  Apocryphal  book  of  Baruch,  which  contains  this  epis- 
tle. If  it  is  adopted  they  have  unwittingly  given  credit 
to  a  forgery. 

Later  catalogues  have  not  book  of  Bai'uch  in  Apocry- 
pha, which  Rome  says  is  canonical. 

With  these  exceptions  all  sustain  the  Protestant  canon. 
The  catalogues  of  the  first  four  centuries  uniting  wdtli 
strict  canon.  Rome  says  they  give  the  Jewish  canon,  and 
not  the  larger  Christian  canon — mere  evasion.  They  give 
the  Jewish  because  the  Christian  is  the  same  as  this,  and 
likewise  binding  on  the  Christian  Church. 

Again  they  say  they  are  excusable  for  the  church  had 
given  no  decision  yet.  But  the  church  can't  decide  this  : 
ail  we  want  is  testimony. 


23 

Romanist  Objections. 

At  the  close  of  the  fourth  century  Augustine  (good 
theologian,  poor  critic) — and  the  councils  of  Hippo  and 
Carthage,  added  most  of  the  hooks  which  are  now  in 
Romish  canon — 

But  (I.)  Not  exactly  same  (a)  Baruch  not  in  any — and 
(b)  first  Esdras=:Nehemiah  and  Ezra;  and  they  contain  a 
book  of  Esdras  (2nd  of  Vulgate,  1st  of  English  apocry- 
pha) which  Rome  does  not  recognize  as  inspired. 

(II.)  These  are  not  ^==  three  independent  witnesses.  Au- 
gustine was  bishop  of  Hippo  near  Carthage,  and  his  influ- 
ence and  views  probably  determined  the  decisions  of  the 
two  Councils. 

(III.)  The  three  catalogues  would  not  reasonably  differ 
so  greatly  from  what  was  held  in  all  the  rest  of  the  church, 
and  hi  Carthage  itself  at  an  earlier  date. 

(IV.)  The  preface  and  conclusion  ol'  the  catalogues 
show  that  they  were  meant  to  include  not  merely  inspired 
works,  but  also  orthodox,  editying  ones  as  prefaces.  Au- 
gustine advises  a  distinction — that  those  received  by  all 
the  churches  should  be  preferred  to  those  received  by  fewer, 
and  among  the  latter  preference  should  be  given  to  most 
important  or  influential  churches.  It  is  plain  these  apoc. 
books  were  not  received  by  early  fathers.  He  certainly 
would  not  have  made  such  a  distinction  among  inspired 
books.  Used  "  canonical  "  as  referring  to  good,  profitable, 
edifying  books, — under  the  second  class. 

(V.)    Augustine    elsewhere    savs    "  the   Jews   had    no  v 

prophet  after  Malachi^until  the  father  of  John  the  Bap-    >^^  .«•  J*<  • 
list."     And  yet  the  Apocrypha  was  written  in  that  inter- 
val.    And  he  says  "  all  the  books  of  O.  T.  were  with  the 
Jews,  who  =  librarians  of  the  church."     But  the  Apocry- 
pha was  rejected  and  also  Judith,  according  to  Augustine. 
He  says  "  the  Jews  don't  receive  Maccabees  as  they  do 
the  law,  the  prophets,  and  the  Psalms,  but  it  is  received 
by  the  church  as  a  book  good  to  be  read,  especially  Mac- 
Mr:^^     cabees,  who  suftered  persecution  so  much  for  the  faith."  vU  Id 2*<^*^  H^»> 
«^>A  sect  called  Circumceliones^allowing  suicide, appealed    Ur^  ^  ^ 
^   to  the  case  of  Drassis  in  2nd  Maccabees.     To  these  per- 
sons Augustine  replies  "  they   are    in   great  straits   for 
authorities,  having  only   this  book,  one   which   neither 


24 

Jews,  nor  Christ,  nor  the  Apostles  sanctioned  as  they  did 
the  prophets  and  Psalms,"  and  "  which  the  church  re- 
ceives only  as  the  history  of  men  who  sutfered  for  God." 
And  says  "  they  are  to  be  read  soberly  and  with  caution, 
only  that  which  is  sound  being  received."  Self-murder, 
.though  approved  in  Maccabees,  is  not  right.  Maccabees 
as  "canonical,"  means  as  approved  by  church  for  private 
land  public  reading.  "  What  is  not  in  the  canon  of  the 
J^ws  cannot  be  received  with  so  much  confidence  against 
opposers."  He  further  says  "  the  accounts  of  thesetimes 
of  persecution  are  not  found  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  which 
are  canonical,  but  in  certain  historical  books  as  Mac, 
which  the  Jews  do  not,  but  the  church  does  esteem  canon- 
ical." So  he  used  the  term  "  canonical  "  in  two  senses — 
the  loose  in  respect  to  the  books  which  contained  the 
story  of  Jewish  and  church  sufferings,  and  were  meant  to 
be  read  as  salutary  in  the  days  of  persecution.  Further 
— "  Things  which  are  not  written  in  the  canon  of  the 
Jews  cannot  be  adduced  with  so  much  force  against  op- 
posers." 

So,  from  the  records  of  martyrdom  as  well  as  from  the 
Scriptural  language  and  its  connections  with  the  O.  T.  in 
the  LXX  and  Vulgate,  the  Apocrypha  gained  a  certain 
sanctity.  It  has  such  yet  from  its  occasional  use  in  the 
Church  of  England. 

(VI.)  There  is  a  presumption  that  the  church  at  Car- 
thage did  not  design  to  cut  itself  off  from  rest  of  the 
church,  for  it  proposed  to  submit  this  canon  to  the  judg- 
ment of  Boniface,  Bishop  of  Rome. 

Question  whether  this  catalogue  is  authentic  and  among 
the  decrees  of  the  church. 
,^  -C^^tA^  -       (VII.)  Tertuljian,  a  lawyer  of  Carthage,  in  preceding 
century,  and  Primazius  and  Junilius  in  fifth  century,  add 
their  testimony.         "^"^^  A-w'^^-^./a^ 

Primazius — Bishop  of  Africa  later— in  fifth  century — 
admits  only  24  books. 

Jiuiilius  distinguishes   aniong   the  "  divine  "  books — 
^wlXCw^  some  of  perfect, ^on\Q  of  Wifdium,  some  of  no  authoriiy= 

Books  on  divine  subjects  not  necessarily  inspired. 

Hence  Carthage  had  not  the  canon,  in  its  w^ide  sense^ 
— in  strict  sense,  the  same  as  present  Romish  canon. 

Hence  bv  all  "  canon  "  was  used  in  its  looser  sense. 


^«    u^^ 


/-   - 


i:? 


(£dL^ -v-^«s^cX    jO<2e^e<-^e<^"^a.*je_  -^^  "^^-^d  o^ 


^^■^^^r^:^^     -..^^^^>.-.-*^        >^     '^    /z.^.-^     ^^^^^^     .^-^^' 


JLfa     ^ 


Ccc4y^    '*^  ^^~Sy       'iJ-e*^,4^  <^^^  i^ — cS  ^^Ck^^ 


Ur^^ 


U^Lc^ 


'^  a-^-t^e,<_r-< 


1 


t'X-t^v         0*~>i^ .eL--C^>— ^ 


Thus  we  see  there  was  no  disagreement  in  the  first  four 
centuries,  if  the  word  "  canon  "  be  used  in  the  strict  sense. 
Same  canon  now, — the  Jewish. 

Fifth  Century. — We  have  seen  that  all  the  catalogues 
except  three  sustain  our  canon  ;  and  that  they  do  so  with- 
out ambiguity,  and  unanimously.  And  that  these  three  j 
have  no  more  weight  than  one;  and  that  they  do  not  in  I 
reality  disagree  from  the  other,  but  merely  use  the  word  1 
canonm  the  loose  sense.  But  even  if  this  bo  not  so,  it  is  ' 
enough  to  condemn  the  Apocrypha  that  it  is  not  in  any 
catalogue  before  the  4th  century. 

Parallel  of  0.  and  K  T.  Canon.  To  neutralize  this  the 
Romanists  bring  up  the  Antelegomena,  disputed  books  of  - 
the  ^.  T.  which  were  not  generally  received  until  the  4th 
century,  but  which  we  all  hold  canonical  now.  But  the 
cases  are  not  similar.  The  Apocrypha  was  older  and  the 
Antelegomena  consists  of  a  few  small  books  which  required 
time  to  become  generally  known  ;  they  were  gladly  ac- 
cepted \x\\QYQ  first  known,  and  gradually  spread.  But  the 
Apocrypha  (1)  were  never  so  accepted  where  first  known 
among  Jews;  (2)  where  so  adopted,  it  was  without  critical 
investigation;  (3)  were  classed  with  O.  T.  loosely)  (4)  and 
even  in  this  lax  sense  were  not  universally  received.  N. 
T.  was. 

Greek  Church. — History  of  the  Canon  in  the  5th  Cen- 
tury. Followed  the  Council  of  Laodicea,  against  the 
Apocrypha  without  a  dissenting  voice. 

Latin  Church. — Division.  Many  were  influenced  by 
Augustine's  great  learning;  as  well  as  influenced  by  the 
growing  custom  of  public  reading  in  churches ;  others  fol-  ^  <^^^<.  • 
low  Jerome  (strict),  but  the  greater  number,  especially  of 
the  intelligent,  favored  only  the  strict  canon.  Cqtalogues 
for  the  large  canon  in  all  this  time,  only  two  or  three. 

Sixth  Century.— Gregory  VIII.,  the  Great,  A.  D.  600, 
First  Bishop  ot  Rome,  quoting  from  Maccabees,  speaks  of 
them  as  "  not  canonical,  but  yet  published  for  the  editica-        Oaj^^    Ja^ 
tion  of  the  church."     Council  of  Trent  ;-^France,  Eng-       <^'^^'    f^ 
land  and  Germany  agree  with  strict  canon.     All  are  con- 
sidered authorities. 

There  are  few  genuine  authorities  favoring  Augustine's 
catalogue, — not  more  than  three  or  four  in  18  centuries. 


26 

III  the  16th  century,  Cardinal  Zimenes,  Archbishop  of 
^^x^^t,^,'^^  Toledo,  before  Council  of  Trent,  (author  of  Compluten- 
"^^  sian  Polyglot,)  says  in  the  preface,  as  his  dedication  to 
Pope  Leo  X.  and  approved  by  him.  "  These  books  of 
the  Apocryphal  O.  T.  (given  in  Greek  only)  were  not  in 
the  canon,  and  were  received  by  the  church  rather  for 
edification  of  people  than  for  doctrine." 

Cardinal  Cagetan,  at  Rome,  an  emient  theologian,  who 
would  have  been  Pope,  had  he  lived  after  Clement  VIL, 
defended  the  strict  canon  onlv  ten  years  before  the  Coun- 
cil of  Trent. 
I  The  Prologue  of  Jerome,  defending  the  strict  canon,  is 
always  in  the  preface  to  the  Romish  Bible. 

Fourth  Session  of  Council  Trent — ecumenical  and  bind- 
ing in  its  decrees — 8th  April,  1546,  adopted  the  looser 
canon  as  inspired :  "  The  Apocrypha  is  to  be  received 
with  equal  veneration  with  the  other  O.  T.  books,"  and 
decreed  anathema  on  those  Avho  rejected  it.  So  that  it 
was  said,  "  the  Romanists  have  made  a  canon  to  condemn 
their  own  Bible."  This  is  really  the  first  time  it  was  ever 
decreed  by  any  ecclesistical  body  that  these  books  were 
Ion  a  par  with  the  inspired  word  of  God;  or  that  those  of 
'contrary  views  should  be  anathema.  The  decision  was 
owing  not  to  thorough  investigation,  but  to  the  fact  that 
at  that  time  many  of  the  "lessons"  of  the  church  were' 
\from  the  Apocrypha,  and  to  the  desire  to  make  an  issue 
I  with  the  Protestants,  who  had  plante/1  themselves  on  the 
Jewish  Canon.  There  was  much  and  earnest  dissent  in 
the  council  even  then.  The  Romanists  say  the  adverse 
testimony  of  the  early  fathers  was  excusable  because  as 
yet  the  church  had  given  no  decision  as  to  canonicity  of 
books. 

Other  JRomanist  Arguments  for  Apocrypha,  besides  the 
early  catalogues  :  ^  A . 
oukt^^'^^^'^^   ^-/spoiitained  in  early  versions. 
' '  C.  Read  in  public  ivorship  early. 

D.    Quoted  by  early  Fathers  as  of  Divine  authority. 

Prelim.  Remark. — The  whole  church  was  united  for 
the  strict  canon.  Even  if  undue  value  was  placed  upon 
the  Apocrypha  in  certain  places,  even  if  some  Fathers 
have  expressed  themselves  thoughtlessly,  incautiously,  on 
the  subject,  yet  the  general  opinion  is  against  them.  Their 


fc^*,^!^  ^^  o-i^<-^--^^'-  y^^  ^' 


■  C-A-^        ^-  /^  , 


-6 


^-^•^ 


(3XvC 


^, 


=^^.~^  X    '^^-^-^  t^f-  >^ 


27 

criticism  has  no  more  weight  than  other  erroneous  judg- 
ment. 

B.  Objection.  ^^  contained  in  early  versions." — Answer. 
(1.)  Apocryjy.ia  waTT?o/f  in  all  early  versions.  The  Suriac 
Peshito,  arul  the  Latin  version  of_JLni.^^'^di(l  not  have  (^^-^^  \ 
them.  The  latter  is  the  foundation  for  the  Vulgate,  »rU£-^ 
which  took  the  Apocn/pJuf,  however,  from  an  earlier  Latin 
version — the  Itala.  But  evidence  is  incomplete  as  to  the 
number  of  versions  in  which  it  was  found. 

(2.)  Though  in  the  Septuafp'nt,  it  was  there  as  a  mere 
appendage,  not  as  equal  to  the  rest  in  authority,  because 
the  Alexandrian  Jews,  among  whom  and  for  whom  the 
translation  was  made,  did  not  so  receive  the  Apocrypha; 
other  early  versions  made  from  the  Septuagint  copied  the 
Apocrypha  as  an  integral  part. 

(3.)  The  Romish  argument  inverts  the   real    order  of 
facts  and  makes  the  effect  the  cause,  saying  it  was  i_n^early 
versions  be(*ause  it   was   inspired,   whereas  it  was  con- 
sidered inspired  by  them  merely  because  it  was  in  ancient 
versions.     There  was  a  great  dearth  of  religious  books,  \ 
and  therefore  these    were  more    naturally    classed  with  \^ 
Bible,  and  bound  with  it,  to  "kill  two   birds  with  oneg> 
stone"  in  their  circulation.    For  most  early  Fathers  did  | 
not  understand  Hebrew  ;  it  was  therefore  translated  from  I 
the  Greek  versions. 

(-Ir.)  From  analogy  of  modern  versions,  it  might  have  i 
been  included  in  the  early  versions  without  being  con- ) 
sidered    inspired.     See    Luther's   version — King   James' 
version.    Found  there  as  in  Eng.  version  of  James,  and 
yet  not  considered  inspired. 

(5.j  Their  argument,  if  valid,  proves  too  much..  They 
reject  as  uncanonical,  3rd  Esdras  and  3rd  Maccabees,  and  /fc-- 

the  Prayer  of  Manasseh,   which  are  in^ early  versions.     ^'**--"l/^  '^^^ 
The  Ethiopic  version  contains  even  more,  as  the  book  of 
Enoch. 

C.  Objection— "liiiixd  in  public  worship  in  same  man- 
ner as  canonical  books,  and  therefore  equal." 

(L)  The  fact  is  admitted  but  the  argument  from  it  is      .    ^^z.,,,^c^^^^<^  ^ 
unsound ;  everything  turns  on^the  intention  with  whicji,  ^^  ^^^-<^^*^^^^ 
the'/  read  it :  must  first  show  this  before  the  argument  is 
of  any  weight.     Letters  were   read    from  absent  pastors 
also. 


28 

(2.)  From  analogy.     Churcb_of_Eng]ancl  shows  that  its 

being  read  in~cTrurches  and  being  canonical,  are  not  the 

Ou^htcL'    same  thing  necessarily.     ^^  Readonj  y  on  festival  days  and 

not  on  the  Sabbath,"  being  read  "Tor  the  example  of  life 

and  the  instruction  of  men." 

(3.)  That  the  early  church  in  reading  these  books  thus,, 
did  not  thereby  esteem  them  canonical,  appears  from 
express  testimony.  Jerome — "  Kead^or  instructjo.n,  but 
not  for  authority."  Very  explicit.  Baffin  says,  "  there 
are  other  books  not  canonical,  but  are  called  Ecclesias- 
tical, as  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  or  Cyrach  or  Ecclesiasticus. 
To  be  read  in  the  churches,  but  not  for  authority  in 
/le^f*^'  faith."  Atkanasius — /^Contains  not  indefinite,  but  deter- 
^""^  mined   and   canonized  books,   and   also   others  not  can- 

onical, but  read    by  catechumens,   as  Wisdom,  Cyrach, 
fJudith,  Tobit  and  Esther;  i.  e.,  Apocrypha  Edition. 

(4.)  This  argument  also  would  prove  too  much,  for 
many  books  were  read  which  Rome  herself  does  not 
esteem  canonical.Ngg^go. 

D.  Objeetion. — ^\^Quoted  by  Early  Fathers  in  a  w^ay 
which  shows  they  esteem  them  inspired."  The  only 
plausible  objection  ;  but  even  if  well-founded,  we  must  take 
it  cautiously  in  connection  with  other  evidence.  But  it  is 
not  a  valid  objection,  however. 
^-'^'^  (l.)^Ascertain  whether  the  quotation  alleged  is  reallj^ 
from  the  Apocrypha.  Man}'  citations  are  not  quotations 
at  all,  but  general  expressions  which  may  occur  anywhere. 

(2.)  If  so,  whether  it  is  quoted  as  from  the  inspired 
word  of  God. 

(1.)  i<l?d  of  being  quoted  ?     Answered.  ^ 

First  Centuri/.  In  the  Fathers  of  this  century  there  are 
a  few  allusions  to  persons  and  things  in  the  Apocrypha^ 
and  a  few  expressions  like  those  in  the  Apocrypha,  but 
no  formal  quotations  from  it.  This  shows  merely  that 
they  were  acquainted  with  the  Apocrypha. 

From  the  ISecond  Century  on.  (a)  Freely  quoted.  So  are 
Homer,  Virgil,  &c.  Shows  only  that  they  were  known 
or  contained  something  pertinent  to  the  matter  in  hand. 
(b)  The  Apocrypha  is  mentioned  with  respect  and  rever- 
ence, and  appealed  to  as  true  ;  but  this  is  very  different 
from  saying  it  is  inspired. 


o^-r1U^^*^^    _,      ^^'^    ^'^     p^c^o^ 


29 

(2.)  Manner  of  quotation  :  There  must  be  something 
in  the  mode  ot  quotation  showing  it  to  have  been  regarded 
as  inspired  ;  of  this  there  is  no  proof.  Rome  says  they 
do  so  quote  (a)  "They  make  use  of  the  same  formulas 
in  quoting  from  Apocrypha  as  in  quoting  from  the  other 
books."  (b)  "  They  employ  the  same  terms  in  speaking 
of  the  writers  of  these  as  in  speaking  of  those  of  the 
other  books." 

Objection  to  (a )  Formula — "  It  is  written,"  the  estab- 
lished phrase  for  "  quoting"  from  the  ins[)ired  word.     It 
was  nothing  to  use  the  same  formula,  for  the  Apocrypha 
was  appended  to  sacred  volume  and  appointed  to  be  read 
in   churches.      They   speak  of  Apocrypha  as  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  Divine  Scriptures.     But  (1)  although  to  us  the 
word  Scripture,  from  long  and  familiar  usage  suggests  the 
Bible,  yet  its  original  import  is  general — loritings  [ypfJ^ifrj)  r» 
and   sacred  scriptures — writings  on  sacred  subjects.     In 
other  words,  they   merely   meant  Sacred   Literature,  in  i 
contrast  with  Profane  Literature,  using  the  loose  sen^se  of  j 
canonical. 

(2.)  That  the  phrases  are  used  in  this  general  sense  or 
in  the  loose  sense  just  mentioned,  is  shown  by  the  fact 
that  the  same  writers  who  exclude  these  books  from  the 
inspired  word,  yet  cite  them  under  these  terms — Origen, 
Jerome,  Athanasius.  Athanasius  even  quotes  from  Ecc. '  /^^  ^.^  cJa/i, 
beginning,  "the   Holy   Ghost  saith."     Such   must  have  /   /   ' 

been  done  inadvertently,  and  without  recollection  of  pecu- 
liar location  of  the  passage  quoted.  In  formal  statement  f 
they  always  leave  these  books  out.  Origen  quotes  Tobit,  ' 
Wisdom,  &c.,  and  speaks  of  them  as  the  Divine  word, 
and  yet  in  his  catalogue  of  the  canon,  leaves  them  out. 
We  prefer  to  accept  their  formal  statement  rather  than 
this  sort  of  evidence. 

(3.)  Such  distinctions  are  made  in  the  "  divine  books," 
&c.,  as  to  show  that  these  terras  must  have  been  o:eneral. 
Junilius  says  "  some  divine  books  are  of  perfect  authority, 
some  of  medium,  some  of  no  authority."  Cyprian  quotes 
from  the  Apocrypha  as  the  Scriptures,  and  then  tries  to 
establish  the  truth  of  the  quotation  by  referring  to  Acts, 
which  he  calls  the  "  testimony  of  truth  ;  "  so  placing  N. 
T.  above  Apoc. 


30 


(4.)  Analogy — The  Homilies  of  the  Church  of  England 
cite  some  books  nnder  the  name  of  Scriptures^  as  the  Book 
of  Wisdom ;  yet  it  does  not  form  part  of  their  canon. 

(5.)  Their  argument  proves  too  much.  Books  are  cited 
under  this  name  by  Augustine  and  others,  which  Roman- 
ists themselves  do  not  admit  and  never  have  admitted,, 
viz:  the  Apostolic  Constitutions,  the  Book  of  Enoch, 
even  the  Sibylline  Verses,  &c. 

(b.)  Another  class  of  quotations.  Writers  are  called  by 
titles  proper  only  to  inspired  men,  as  prophets,  etc.,  or 
the  writings  are  attributed  to  some  known  inspired  writ- 
ers, as  "  the  5  books  of  Solomon,"  viz  :  the  three  genuine 
ones,'fWisdom,  and  Cyrach. 

Answer — (1.)  These  expressions  are  in  a  loose,  popular 
sense,  so  declared  by  Augustine,  who  says  the  two  other 
books  are  attributed  to  Solomon  (see  above),  and  are  so 
because  of  their  similarity  of  style;  but  "  the  learned  da 
not  doubt  they  are  not  his."  So  "  Book  of  Daniel  "  does 
not  assert  tbat  Daniel  was  the  author,  and  so  "  Baruch 
and  Jeremiah."  Solomon  was  not  the  author  of  Wisdom,, 
and  Daniel  not  of  Dan.  of  the  Canon.  Baruch  is  dis- 
tinctly declared  to  be  written  by  another  than  Jer.,  and 
Ecc.  by  other  than  Sol. 

(2.)  If  we  insist,  however,  on  these  points,  they  only 
prove  that  the  Fathers  were  mistaken,  for  it  can  clearly 
be  shown  that  many  of  the  books  so  spoken  of  are  not 
genuine. 

(3.)  The  Fathers  did  not  mean^that  they  were  the  word 
of  God,  for  they  elsew^here  expressly  exclude  them. 

(4.)  Analogy — Church  of  England  calls  Baruch  "  a 
prophet,"  without  any  design  of  putting  the  book  into- 
the  canon. 

(5.)  Proves  too   much — "  argumentum  ad   hominem.'" 
So  Rome  cites  3d  and  4th  Esdras  under  Ezra, 
/.^^c^t--     Ergo,  the  Apocrypha  was  excludedxhy  the  Jews,  by  our 
'  Lord  and  the  Apostles,  and  by  the  Christian  church  gen- 

erally, if  not  universally,  until  Council  of  Trent. 

CJo<xU<  i"-^^-^  <S</uSlux.^^.'^  ^     Internal  Evidence.        ^ 

Not  decisive  (e.  g.  Esther,  Ruth,  Ecclesiastes,)  yet  aids^ 
in  settling  the  extent  of  the  canon.  Even  Luther  doubted 
the  canonicity  of  the  Epistle  of  James,  because  it  seemed 


H   ^<<fc      ^-o-*a-«'    <ZcJ-0i.sf~^ 


Kji^    a^      y^ 


^. 


31 

to  contradict  the  apostle  Paul.  Historical  evidence  must 
decide  historical  questions.  A  book  containing  what  is 
false  in  fact  or  doctrine  or  unworthy  of  God,  is  not  in- 
spired :  Tobit  and  Judith  so — are  full  of  topographical 
and  chronological  mistakes,  and  historical. 

Tobit — 1  :  4-5.  In  the  youth  of  Tobit,  the  ten  tribes 
revolted  from  Judah.  under  Jeroboam.  Hence  he  must 
have  been  270  years  old  at  the  Assyrian  captivity,  at  which 
time  he  was  taken  captive.  But  (14  :  11)  he  was  only  158 
years  old  when  he  died. 

His  anofels'  visits,  contrarv  to  all  analos^v,  are  Ions:  con- 
tinned;  an  angel  journeying  on  foot  with  him  300  miles. 
The  angel  Raphael  lies  to  Tobias,  representing  himself  as 
Azarias  5:  12;  they  both  lie  to  R.  calling  themselves 
^N'ephthalim  7:3;  the  book  contains  ridiculous  supersti- 
tion, 6:  2,  6:  17. 

He  teaches  a  doctrine  nowhere  else  taught :  of  seven 
angels  going  in  and  out  before  God ;  borrowed  from  Per- 
sian superstition. 

His  absurdities.  An  evil  spirit  in  love  with  a  woman  ; 
can  be  driven  away  only  by  a  smoking  heart  and  the  liver 
of  a  fish — 6  :  7-17.  Says  almsgiving  can  deliver  from 
death  and  purge  away  all  sin.     12:9.     14  :  10  and  11. 

Judith — 6  :  10-11.  The  scene  is  laid  in  Bethuliah  ;  no 
trace  of  it.  The  name  means  virghi.  It  is  probably  an 
allegory  or  romance. 

There  is  no  time  possible  for  the  events  related ;  as  the 
protracted  peace  of  80  years,  &c.  The  march  of  Holo- 
fernes  is  decidedly  zigzag.  The  book  says  it  was  in  the 
reign  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  king  of  Nineveh,  (1  :  1) ;  but 
Babylon  was  his  capital.  That  Jehoiakim  was  the  contem- 
porary high-priest ;  but  there  was  no  high-priest  of  this 
name  till  after  the  exile.    (4  :  6.) 

Judith's  language  and  conduct  is  false  and  deceitful. 
Teaches  the  Jesuitical  plea  that  "the  end  justifies  the 
means."  Even  prays  God  to  assist  her  in  so  doing.  (9: 
10-13.)  The  crime  of  Simeon,  condemned  in  Gen,  49  : 
5;  is  here  praised.  It  is  said  to  be  a  crime  to  break  the 
ceremonial  law  even  to  save  life.  (11 :  10.)  Jesus  taught 
otherwise,  and  rebuked  for  such  strict  adherence. 

The  Books  of  Wisdom  and  Cyrach  or  Ecclesiasticus,. 
contain    many  excellent    maxims,   vet   their  morality   is 


32 

defective,  and  is  based  mainly  on  expediency.  And  the 
wisdom  is  less  that  of  Solomon  than  of  the  late  Alexan 
drian  philosophers. 

Wisdom  7  :  25 — The  doctrines  of  Emanation  from  God, 
and  (8  :  19-20)  pre-existence  of  the  soul  are  taught,  and 
that  the  world  was  created  from  preexisting  matter.  (11 : 
17.)     Philosophy  of  Plato. 

9 :  15 — That  the  material  body  is  a  weight  upon  the 
soul. 

10  :  15-20 — Israel  is  represented  as  righteoua,  and  all 
God's  favors  to  it  as  a  just  reward.  Even  real  miracles 
are  spoken  of  in  an  exaggerated  way,  from  mere  love  of 
the  marvellous;  e.  g.^  manna. 

16 :  20-21 — It  says  the  manna  was  agreeable  to  every 
taste,  and  tempered  itself  to  every  man's  liking. 

16th  and  17th  Chaps. — Plagues  of  Egypt  are  described 
with  embellishments  which  are  not  w^arranted. 

18:  21-25 — False  explanation  of  the  high-priest's  dress: 
virtue  is  ascribed  to  his  dress  which  is  due  only  to  his 
mediatorial  office. 

10 :  4 — Cain's  murder  of  Abel  is  said  to  have  caused 
the  flood. 

14:  15 — The  account  of  the  origin  of  idolatry,  flimsy 
and  untrue.  •'  Owing  to  fathers  making  images  of  their 
deceased  children."  No  moral  cause  is  assigned,  as  by 
Paul,  in  Rom.  1:  21-23    Alienation  of  the  heart  from  God. 

7th  Chap,  and  9:  7-8 — Solomon  said  to  be  the  author, 
yet  the  people  are  spoken  of  as  being  at  the  time  under 
subjection  to  their  enemies — 15  :  14.  This  was  never  the 
case  in  days  of  Solomon. 

And  it  can  be  proved  that  it  was  originally  written  in 
Greek. 
^^'      J^RACii  OR  EccLESiASTicus.— Many  passages  teaching 
justification  by  works. 

3  :  30 — Almsgiving  atones  for  sin. 

3  :  3 — Honoring  parents  atones  for  sin. 

35  :  3 — And  forsakino'  unrio^hteousness  atones  for  sin. 

12 :  4-7 — Kindness  to  the  wicked  is  prohibited.  . 

33:  26-28 — Cruelty  to  slaves  is  allowed  and  justified. 
(47:  5.) 

50:  25-26— Hate  towards  Samaritans  is  also  approved. 
Exhortations  to  do  right  to  gain  the  favor  of  men.  Expe- 
diency substituted  for  right  as  the  ground  of  obligation. 


33 

38:  IK — "  Weep  for  the  dead,  lest  thou  be  evil  spoken 
of." 

Chap.  14:  11-1(5 — Carnal  enjoyment  taiiirht,  because 
life  is  brief     Cf  Paul  I  Cor.  15  :  32. 

45  :  15. — ''Aaron  priest,  as  long  as  the  heavens  stand.''  J4-^^   Gz.*^.^^ 

Barucii. — Said  to  have  been  written  bv  Baruch,  the 
helper  of  Jeremiah,  yet  oriii^inally  in  Greek,  and  quotes 
Nehemiah  and  Daniel,  who  lived  later.  Baruch  is  said  to 
have  gone  to  Babylon  :  did  not  if  the  real  Baruch,  but 
went  to  Egypt. 

1  :  10. — The  Temple  is  spoken  of  as  standing,  and  offer- 
ings were  to  be  made  in  Jerusalem,  though  in  Jeremiah's 
time  it  was  in  ashes. 

1 :  11. — Belshazzar  is  called  the  son  of  Nebuchadnezzar, 
though  ho  was  his  (jrands(yn. 

Speaks  of  sending  vessels  back  by  Jeremiah,  (1  :  8) 
thoucrh  this  was  not  done  till  after  the  exile.  See  Ezra 
1  :  7.^ 

3  :  4 — "  God  hears  the  prayers  of  the  dead."  (So  also 
2d  Maccabees,  15  :  14  teaches.)   Proof  texts  for  Romanists. 

The  captivity  according  to  Jeremiah,  70  years  :  Baruch's 
Epistle  of  Jeremiah  says  seven  generations.  Manifestly 
written  later  therefore,  and  as  an  explanation. 

I.  and  XL  Maccabees. — I.  Has  many  errors,  historical 
and  geographical,  but  is  better  than  II.,  which  abounds 
in  fables  and  legends.  In  the  latter,  1  :  19,  preservation 
of  sacred  fire  ;  2  :  4,  Jeremiah  hiding  the  tabernacle  and 
ark  and  altar  of  incense,  in  Mount  Nebo ;  and  3  :  25,  the 
apparition  which  is  said  to  have  prevented  the  Emperor 
Heliodorus  from  invading  the  sanctity  of  the  Temple. 
14:41-46  justifies  suicide;  12:42-45,  prayers  for  the 
dead. 

The  writer  does  not  even  claim  inspiration — 15  :  38-39. 
''  Wrote  according  to  his  ability." 

Esther. — The  genuine  Book  of  Ebiher  only  in  Hebrew; 
the  spurious  additions  only  in  Greek,  and  in  the  old  Latin 
version.  Jerome  remarks  as  to  the  addition,  that  some 
writer  undertook  to  add  what  might  have  been  said.  But 
it  really  breaks  the  connection,  contradicts,  and  adds 
things  improbable  and  evidently  untrue.  The  Sophists 
did  so  often. 


34 

Additions  to  Daniel. — Three  of  thetii. 

I.  Prayer  of  the  three  children  in  the  fiery  furnaqe. 
Devotional,  but  not  adapted  to  the  occasion  or  their  situ- 
ation, (verses  23-27)  and  contains  unwarrantable  asser- 
tions. 

II.  Story  of  Susannah — improbable,  and  doubtful  as  to 
basis  of  fact. 

III.  Bel  and  the  Dragon — absurd  and  ridiculous. 

The  Council  of  Trent,  though  few  in  members,  and 
representing  a  limited  territory,  imposed  the  Apocrypha 
as  inspired,  in  the  face  of  all  preceding  authority,  upon 
the  wdiole  Romish  church,  denouncing  its  anathema  on 
all  who  presumed  to  reject  it.  Since  then,  of  course,  the 
line  of  witnesses  in  the  Latin  church,  against  the  Apoc- 
rypha, has  ceased.  Yet  some  few  object,  and  make  a 
distinction  between  the  Deuterocanouical  [L  e.,  the  Apoc- 
rypha) and  the  Protocanonical  books — the  former  as  of 
less  authority  and  veneration.  But  this  does  not  accord 
with  the  language  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  and  there  can 
be  no  degrees  in  such  a  matter. 

Gkeek  Church. 

Favors  the  strict  canon. 

Cyril  Leucar,  1631,  Constantinople  —  adheres  to  the 
Council  of  Laodicea. 

Dositheus,  of  Jerusalem,  1672,  under  Romish  influence^ 
sanctioned  the  Apocrypha. 

Platon,  of  Moscow,  approves  of  the  authorized  Russian 
catechism,  and  authorizes  onl}^  the  strict  Jewish  canon — 
1836. 

Protestant  Church. 

lias  always  been  unanimous  for  the  strict  Hebrew  canon 
as  to  its  inspiration.  The  opinion  about  the  use  of  the 
Apocrypha  has  been  various,  (none  regarding  it  as  in- 
spired, but)  some  approving  the  "  reading  of  it  for  instruc- 
tion in  life  and  manners,  though  not  for  doctrine " 
(Jerome.)  Church  of  England  : — the  Westminster  Con- 
fession says  it  is  to  be  used  no  more  than  human  writings. 

The  former  of  these  views  naturally  led  to  keeping  it  in 
Bibles  as  an  appendix;  the  latter  banished  it  altogether 


r  ■ 


-tr,      ^ 


/  ^   rx.     *.  -^t^— <.  ti-V         Co-- 


-y^^/. 


35 

from  the  volume.  Tlie  antagonism  culminated  in  the 
"Apocryphal  controversy/'  The  German  branches  of 
the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  used  Luther's  ver- 
sion, containing  the  Apocrypha.  In  1811,  the  Society 
resolved  to  require  its  auxiliaries  to  leave  out  the  Apocry- 
pha. Owing  to  opposition,  the  order  was  rescinded  in 
1813,  In  1819,  the  Society  allowed  their  auxiliaries  to 
print  the  Catholic  Bibles  in  Italian,  Spanisli  and  Portu- 
guese and  insert  the  Apocrypha  with  the  inspired  books 
indiscriminately — saying  the  Bible  could  not  be  distrib- 
uted in  those  countries  unless  it  were  so.  Much  opposi- 
tion, resulting  in  the  compromise  (1822)  that  they  should 
use  the  money  of  the  Society  only  to  print  the  strict 
canon,  the  Apocrypha  at  private  expense.  In  1824, 
Leander  Van  Ness,  the  publisher  of  the  vulgate,  asked 
aid  of  Bible  Society  in  publication  of  it.  Said  he  would 
bear  entire  costy^f  they  would  permit.  This  they  con-  ^  ^^  <^o^ 
sented  to  do,  but  arrangements  were  made  for  only  a 
year  when  they  decided  to  publish  the  Apoc.  separately. 
Still  many  were  dissatisiied.  In  1827  it  was  resolved  by 
the  Society  that  "  no  person  or  association  circulating  the 
Apocrypha  should  receive  aid  from  the  Society,  and  none 
but  bound  books  should  be  issued."  Basis  on  which  Bible 
Society  works  now.  Strife  renewed  in  Germany  lately, 
some  theologians  entirely  excluding  the  Apocrypha,  some 
claiming  a  subordinate  place  for  it  owing  to  long  ecclesi- 
astical usage.  But  the  usage  grew  up  when  books  w^ere 
scarce  ;  now  that  books  are  plenty  and  accessible,  it  is 
not  necessary  to  put  the  two  together. 

But  the  Apocrypha  deserves  to  be  carefully  read,  for  its 
prominence  in  the  controversy  and  because  it  has  some     ^a^./o/ 
intrinsic  worth  (especially  I.  Maccabees),  and  sheds  much 
light  on  the  canonical  books,  explains  customs,  &c.  — ■ 

The  threefold  division  of  Law,  Prophets  and  Hagio-  iqk  ^q  ^f-^f 
grapha  or  Kethuvim  (writings).  This  threefold  classitica-  '  ' 
tion  is  first  referred  to  in  the  Prologue  to  Cyrach,  where 
this  division  is  mentioned  twice.  Five  books  are  in  the 
Law,  eight  in  the  Prophets,  and  eleven  in  the  Hagiog- 
rapha.  For  Josephus'  division  see  previous  lecture,  page 
9.  He  made  it  for  his  own  use  and  purpose.  See  also 
Luke  24  :  44. 

Our  Lord  only  singles  out  the  book  of  Psalms  from  the 
Hagiographa  as  mainly  Messianic ;  or  else  the  Psalms,  as 


being  the  leading  book,  first  in  order,  and  most  important, 
is  named  to  include  the  rest.  So  we  speak  of  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  and  Book  of  Common  Praver.  It  is  said 
they  also  bear  internal  evidence  of  gradual  and  successive 
formation. 

"Law  first;  all  given  subsequently  were  afterwards 
gathered  into  a  second  volume,  the  Prophets,  which  was 
closed :  a  third  collection  was  again  made  of  ones  which 
were  not  before  known  or  discovered,  and  this  is  the  third 
division  or  Kethuvim."  Those  who  make  this  statement 
say  it  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  there  are  books  in  the 
third  division  which  should  have  been  in  the  second  if 
they  had  been  known.  Daniel  is  not  in  the  Prophets  but 
in  the  third  division.  Kings  in  the  second  among  Pro- 
phets;  but  Chronicles,  which  has  preciseh' the  same  char- 
acter, is  in  the  third.  Hence  they  say  the  formation  into 
three  classes  was  a  process  of  time  and  discovery. 

Reply  — I.  This  view  is  based  upon  the  idea  that  the 
collection  of  the  canon  was  a  purely  literary  rescue  from 
destruction.  But  the  books  were  oil  well  known,  and  all 
the  collectors  had  to  do  was  to  arrange  them. 

IT.  This  theory  of  time,  &c.,  does  not  account  for  the 
phenomenon.  They  say  the  book  of  the  Prophets  was 
closed.  What  is  meant  by  this  ?  Not  so  as  long  as  any 
book  remained ;  no  sense  in  which  it  can  be  true. 

III.  The  whole  theory  is  in  conflict  with  the  facts  :  the 
l*salms,  <fec.,  were  known  when  the  collection  of  the 
Prophets  was  made,  and  the  Psalms  were  used  in  temple- 
worship.     Why  not  then  in  this  division  ? 

IV.  There  is  an  easy  and  satisfactory  explanation.  The 
Rabbins  distinguished  various  grades  of  inspiration  in  the 
inspired  writers.  1st.  The  Law,  given  to  Moses  face  to 
face  with  God  ;  2nd.  the  Prophets,  those  written  under  the 
influence  of  the  spirit  of  prophecy ;  8rd.  those  written 
under  the  ordinary  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Some 
truth  in  this  tradition.  The  ground  is  the  offlcial  char- 
acter of  the  authors. 

1.  Moses'  functions  were  unique,  the  legislator. 

2.  Prophets  officialbj  such,  class  by  themselves. 

3.  There  were  other  inspired  men  not  set  apart  specially, 
men  exercising  secular  functions,  as,  David,  Solomon, 
Daniel,  Ezra,  Kehemiah.     The  Chronicles  were  probably 


37 

written  by  Kzra,  the  Kings  by  ji  Prophet,  using  the  word 
in  the  proper  ofiicial  sense  of  the  term. 

.-.  The  clas.-^itication  regards  not  the  contents  but  the 
authors. 

Only  one  book,  Lamentations,  causes  any  eml)arras3- 
ment,  according  to  this  princii»le.  The  prophecies  of  Jere- 
miah are  among  the  Prophets  :  and  it  is  probal)le  that 
Lamentations  was  originally  also  so  included,  ft  seems 
so  from  the  enumerations  of  Josephns  and  of  Origen,  who 
give  only  22  books,  and  Lamentations  must  then  have 
been  included,  under  Jeremiah's  prophecies.  It  was  prob- 
ably transferred  afterward  for  liturgical  purposes,  or  from 
its  resemblance  to  the  Psalms. 

This  division  was  in  force  in  the  time  of  Christ,  Matth. 
28  :  35.  As  if  to  take  from  the  extremes  of  Scripture,  as 
well  as  of  time,  Abel  (in  the  tirst  book)  is  mentioned,  and 
Zacharias  from  (probably  the  last  book  of  the  O.  T.  writ- 
ten) IL  Chronicles.     Though  this  is  not  decisive. 

Greek  and  Latin  and  English  Bibles  give  a  fourfold 
division. 

L  Law — Pentateuch.^ 

2.  Historical  Books.     ! 

3.  Poetical  "         ( 

4.  Prophetical     "        J 

Athanasius  divides  into  four  Pentateuchs,  covering  all 
but  two  of  the  l)ooks,  Ezra  and  Esther. 

1.  Moses'  Books. 

2.  Five  Historical  Books. 

3.  Poetical  Books — Job,  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Ecclesias- 
tes,  Canticles. 

4.  Prophetical  Books  —  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  EzekieU 
Daniel,  and  the  Mi  nor  Prophets. 

Samaritans  had  27 — or  28  separating  Ruth— count 
double  books  as  single.  This  corresponds  with  the  Hebrew 
alphabet,  22  consonants,  5  double  forms.  This  is  accord- 
ing to  Jerome  and  Epiphanius. 

The  number  33  has  also  been  given,  making  with  X. 
T.  Books,  60  in  all.  This  was  done  by  counting  the  12 
Minor  Prophets  singly,  and  not  as  one.  The  number  60 
was  given  a  n)ystical  sense,  as  referring  to  the  60  queens 
of  Solom.on.  The  English  version  of  the  O.  T.  numbers 
39. 


38 


Ceremonial  Institutions  of   Mosaic 

Law. 

MOSAIC  law. 

NATURE    AND    DESIGN. 

The  Pentatenclial  Lei^islatioii  was  divided  into  three 
forms  : 

L  Book  of  the  Covenant.     Ex.  24:  7;  Ex.  20:  23. 

IL  The  Ceremonial  system,  or  Levitical  Code.  Ex. 
25  to  end,  Lev.  and  Num.  This  was  o^iven  partly  during 
the  40  days  sojourn  at  Sinai,  i)artly  durino-  the  40  years 
wandering'  in  the  wilderness.  It  is  a  journal  of  the  laws, 
and  the  fact  of  its  heing  interspersed  with  irrelevant  his- 
torical incidents  is  a  strong  proof  of  the  contemporaneous 
-character  of  tlie  record. 

III.  The  Deuteronomic  Code;  given  just  before  Moses' 
death  and  the  entrance  into  Canaan. 

We  have  to  do  with  the  Ceremonial  Law,  orLEviTiCAL 
•Code,  because  of  its  im[)ortance..  It  is  important,  because: 

1.  In  it  we  become  acquainted  with  the  Jewish  religion. 

2.  Teaching  of  0.  T.  all  presupposes  this  system. 

3.  Necessary  to  proper  understanding  of  N.  T. 

4.  Especiallj'  important  because  of  modern  criticism, 
whose  ske|)ticism  tends  to  undermine  the  truth  of  the 
Bible  and  the  reality  of  supernatural  Revelation. 

The  Ceremonial  Law  may  l)e  divided  into  : — 

1.  Sacred  Places — Tabernacle. 

2.  Sacred  Persons — Priesthood. 

3.  Sacred  Actions — The  Ritual. 

4.  Sacred  Times — The  Calendar. 

Before  the  time  of  Moses  there  was  no  structure  for 
worship.  The  Patriarchs  built  altars  in  the  open  air  on 
mountains  or  under  trees. 


39 

1.  The  Tabernacle. — Built  of  acacia  wood  overlaid 
with  gold — sockets  of  silver  or  brass.  Rectangular— 30 
-cubits  long,  10  wide,  10  high — inside  measurements; 
divided  into  two  apartments  by  a  richly  wrought  veil. 
This  veil  wrought  with  cherubim  could  not  have  been  the 
■outer  covering,  but  was  tlie  inner  lining.  One  cubit  of 
the  gold  covered  ceiling.  Near  the  floor  was  not  covered 
by  this  veil. 

The  Tabernacle  had  no  roof  but  an  awning.  First 
■covering — 10  separate  pieces  called  curtains,  each  28x4, 
of  line  linen — inner  lining.  2nd  covering — cn-er  this 
was  of  goats'  hair.  "A  tent  over  the  dwelling" — 11 
parts,  30-4; — 3rd  and  4th  were  two  additional  coverings 
— one  of  rams'  skins  dyed  red,  the  other  of  badgers' 
skins  or  seal  skin.     The  roof  was  jiat.     Ex.  25  :  31. 

Apartments  (a.)  Holy  of  Holies. — Innermost  room; 
perfect  cube,  10x10x10.  (b.)  Holy  P/^/ee— Eectangular ; 
20  cubits  long,  10  high,  and  10  wide.  Separated  from 
court  by  a  rail     Ex.  36  :  40. 

(c.)  The  Court — Surrounding  the  Tabernacle  proper, 
100  cubits  long,  50  wide,  5  high.  The  people  were  ad- 
mitted only  to  the  court — through  middle  entrance  in  end 
—  in  which  stood  the  Altar  of  Burnt  Offering  and  Larer. 
The  Priests  were  admitted  into  the  Holy  Place — through 
etitrance  by  east — in  which  were  the  Altar  of  Incense^ 
Golden  Candlestick,  and  Ihhle  of  Shew  Bread.  Into  the 
Holy  of  Holies  or  Most  Holy  Place,  where  were  the  Ark 
and  Mercy  Seat,  only  the  High  Priest  could  go,  and  that 
only  once  a  year — on  the  great  day  of  Atonement.  The 
Tabernacle  was  50  cubits  back  from  the  front  of  the 
Court. 

MEANIN(i    AND    DeSIGN. 

Is  there  any  special  signilication  in  the  structure,  apart 
from  its  uses  ?  It  might  be  that  the  ritual  was  the  only 
significant  portion,  and  everything  else  subsidiary  to  it. 
There  must  be  some  place  for  this  ritual,  also  Priests  and 
set  times.  While  it  is  true  that  the  ritual  was  the  most 
essential  and  important,  to  which  the  others  are  subsidiary,, 
yet  the  latter  had  a  signification.  1.  This  appears  because 
the  arrangement  and  plan  of  the  structure  are  not  deter- 
mined by  simple  regard  to  convenience,  or  adaptability  to 


40 

its  uses,  (a)  The  building  was  not  demanded  to  shelter 
the  crowd  of  worshippers,  for  they  w^ere  not  really  shel- 
tered at  all.  The  court  was  open  to  the  sky.  (b)  The 
dimensions  were  out  of  proportion  to  its  contents,  (c) 
No  purpose  of  convenience  was  answered  by  closing  these 
from  the  light,  nor  (d)  do  we  know  why  they  were  set 
toward  the  East. 

Second  lieason. — The  minute  and  careful  directions  in 
the  most  trifling  matters,  e.  g.^  the  number  of  boards  in 
the  court,  chords,  loops,  curtains,  A:c.  This  shows  some 
further  meaning  in  the  thing  itself  Nothing  was  left  to 
human  invention.  All  was  prescribed  by  God.  This 
shows  its  sacrcdness  and  heavenly  oriofin,  just  as  in  Rev. 
21 :  15  ;  11  :  1-2 ;  also  in  Ezckiel  40  to  end.  Rev.  11 :  1-2 
— The  court  was  not  to  be  measured  but  given  to  the 
Gentiles.     Measurements  imply  sacredness. 

Third  licason.—Moi^es  (Ex.  25:  40;  26:  30)  was  directed 
to  make  all  things  after  the  pattern  shown  him  in  the 
Mount. 

AV^hat  was  the  Symbolical  Meaning?     Various  views: 

I.  The  Materialistic. — Some  say  that  it  was  modelled 
after  the  tents  of  earthly  rulers,  and  was  designed  to  be 
the  abode  of  the  divine  monarch  of  Israel.  There  is  a 
gross  material  sense  of  this  view  held  by  some,  as  though 
God  had  the  same  necessities  and  wants  as  men.  This 
view  is  inconsistent  with  God's  nature.  To  this  we  say  : — 
(1.)  The  plan  does  not  correspond  to  a  human  tent.  The 
seat  or  throne  is  set  in  a  dark  apartment;  the  candlestick 
in  another  room.  (2.)  The  food  is  on  the  table,  the  fire  on 
the  altar,  but  no  bed.  (3.)  Its  being  made  after  the  pattern 
shown  in  the  Mount,  proves  that  it  was  not  made  after  a 
human  tent.  Others  who  have  held  this  general  view^ 
said  it  was  an  ideal  structure  for  God,  w^ho  had  no  need 
of  shelter,  but  yet  condescended  to  dwell  in  a  tent.  There 
is  a  measure  of  truth  in  this,  but  still  it  does  not  explain 
the  structure. 

II.  Cosmical  Theory. — They  say  the  Tabernacle,  &c., 
represents  the  Universe.  The  Tabernacle  represented 
heaven,  and  the  Court  represented  the  earth. 

Three  Modificcdions  of  this  View  : 

1.  It  represented  the  material  heaven  and  earth.  Philo, 
Josephus,  some  Christian  Fathers,  Talmud  and  the  Rab- 


41 

bins,  held  this.  They  lielil  that  the  contents  of  the 
Tabernacle  were  celestial,  and  those  in  the  Court  ter- 
restrial. The  Seven  Lanijis  represented  the  seven  planets: 
Twelve  Loaves—twelve  signs  of  the  Zodiuc  :  Two  Cherii- 
bini  =  the  two  hemispheres  of  the  heavens,  winsred  to 
denote  constant  motion.  Four  Materials  of  the  Veil  :=the 
four  elements.  In  the  Court,  the  Laver  =  the  sea.  The 
Altar=r=the  land.  This  view  is  false  because  (1)  there  is 
no  intimation  in  Scripture  that  these  objects  were  repre- 
sented in  the  temple.  This  is  what  misled  Philo  and 
Josephus.  (2)  This  would  be  a  mere  worship  of  nature, 
like  the  lieathen  who  had  these  objects  in  their  temples. 
(3)  The  very  objects  here  supposed  to  be  represented,  are 
those  which  were  forbidden  to  be  represented  by  images 
and  worshipped — Deut.  4  :  19;  Kx.  *20 :  4.  This  would 
seduce  the  people  to  idolatry  l)y  Divine  appointment,  the 
same  thing  that  Manasseh  was  accused  of  doing — 2  Kings 
21:  15.  (4)  The  Tabernacle  would  thus  contain  none  of 
the  things  we  should  expect  to  tind  there  in  connection 
with  the  Mosaic  System. 

Second  Modijicailon  of  the  general  theory,  held  by  a  few 
Rabbins,  who  maintained  that  there  was  a  literal  taber- 
nacle in  the  heavens  and  copied  by  Moses. 

Tliird  31odifi,cat)OiK — That  the  Tabernacle  represented 
the  invisible  heavens.  1.  This  is  based  on  the  fact  that 
the  Scriptures  use  the  same  terms  in  reference  to  the 
Tabernacle  as  of  Heaven  ;  e.g.,  "  God  dwelleth  in  both." 
2.  That  Solomon,  in  his  prayer,  (I  Kings,  8  :  30)  asks  that 
God  would  hear  in  heaven,  etc.,  when  they  [)rayed  toward 
the  temple.  3.  That  this  view  has  the  authority  of  the 
N.  T.,  lleb.  9:  24;  9:  11;  8:  2;  G:  20. 

Against  this  we  say:  The  ai)ostle  does  establish  a 
relationship  between  the  Tabernacle  and  Heaven,  but  not 
that  of  a  symbol  but  of  a  type.  Distinction  between  si/mbol 
and  ti/pe  to  l)e  kept  in  view.  A  type  is  a  prophetic  symbol. 
A  sijmbol  is  a  natural  object  which  represents  some  spirit- 
ual truth  ;  a  type  is  the  ultimate  form  in  which  that  truth 
finds  representation.  What  was  done  by  the  priest  in  the 
Tabernacle  was  tj'pical  of  what  Christ  does  in  Heaven. 

As  to  the  other  arguments:  God  did  dwell  in  the 
Tabernacle  and  in  Heaven  ;  but  the  Tabernacle  was  not 
the  symbol  of  Heaven.     He  manifested  himself  in  both. 


42 

but  \n  ditfereiit  ways.  One  was  the  abode  of  his  conde- 
scension as  the  God  of  Israel,  the  other  the  abode  of  his 
glory  as  the  God  of  the  Universe. 

Luther's  Vt'eir. — Tabernacle  represents  the  man  himself, 
the  human  nature  in  which  God  dwells;  its  two  depart- 
ments represent  the  soul  and  spirit.  One  of  Luther's 
disciples  compares  parts  of  Tabernacle  with  parts  of  body. 
Bones,  muscles,  veins,  and  sinews  all  represented  by  parts 
of  Tabernacle.     This  confounds  type  and  symbol. 

The  true  meaning  is  shown  (1)  by  the  ditierent  expres- 
sions used  in  reference  to  it.  It  is  called  the  teiU  or 
tabernacle  and  house  of  God;  the  palace  or  temple,  (1  Sam. 
1  :  9)  the  dicelling  place  of  God.  These  names  are  con- 
founded in  the  received  version,  but  kept  distant  in  I^.  V. 
These  names  suggest  the  idea  of  earthly  residence.  God 
is  not  a  God  afar^'oif,  but  near  at  hand.  (2)  The  design 
w^as  expressly  declared  by  God  himself  (Ex.  25  :  8)  as  the 
place  where  he  would  dwell.  God  was  there,  and  there 
spoke  and  manifested  his  presence.  The  people  went  up 
there  to  meet  him  and  address  him. 

(3.)  The  character  of  the  symbol  itself:  The  house  was 
designed  for  God,  and  placed  in  the  centre  of  his  camp. 
Theseveral  families  of  the  Levites  encamped  with  Moses 
and  Aaron  i»ear  it,  and  three  tribes  on  each  side.  It  was 
set  by  the  points  of  the  compass,  fronting  the  East,  show- 
ing ii  to  be  set  for  the  whole  earth.  His  kingdom  was  to 
control  all  the  earth  ;  the  end  of  the  Jewish  nation  w^as 
to  correct  the  world ;  to  correct  the  idea  that  the  Jews 
were  the  exclusive  favorites  of  heaven.  (4)  This  general 
idea  of  God  dwelling  on  the  earth  is  further  specified  (Ex. 
27  :  21)--=the  Tabernacle  of  the  congregation,  which  reads 
■  in  Hebrew, =Tent  of  meeting — a  meeting  place  for  two  par- 
ties—Ex. 29  :  42-43.  "  Where  I  will  meet  you."  Not 
called  a  meeting  house  because  the  people  met  together, 
but  because  God  met  with  the  people. — Ex.  25  :  22^.  The 
purpof^e  of  the  meeting  was — the  Tabernacle  of  Testimony 
or  Witness.  See  Num.  9  :  15 ;  18  :  2.  God  gave  to  Moses 
tables  of  testimony— Ex.  31:  18;  25:  16;  Deut.  31  :  26. 
God's  commandments  are  called  testimony,  because  they 
testify  God's  will  to  men.  This  is  the  Tabernacle  of  testi- 
mony because  it  is  the  place  where  his  will  is  made 
known.     The  purpose  lor  which  God  meets  his  people 


43 

is  sl)0\vn  in  the  name  Sanrtuarj/  and  also  in  the  special 
names  Holy  Llace  and  Holy  of  Holies.  Called  Sanctuary 
Dot  because  set  apart  for  sacred  duties;  still  less  in  the 
sense  of '' asylum,"  which  is  a  heathen  idea. — These  ideas 
are  subordinate.  But  it  did  signify  inward  moral  -pimUj^ 
the  place  where  holiness  is  required  and  imparted.  Lev. 
21  :  23.  The  full  idea  then  is — The  place  where  God 
dwells  with  his  people  in  order  to  testify  his  will  and  thus 
to  sanctity  them. 

Examination  of  its  structure  and  meaning  of  its  parts. 

1.  The  Tabernacle  proper,  i^«oc. 

2.  The  Court,  Uobv. 

The  Tabernacle  was  in  the  strict  sense  the  House  of 
•God.  The  Court  was  not  strictly  so.  Beyond  the  outer 
veil  (translated  hanging  in  Received  Version),  the  people 
<jould  not  pass,  only  the  representatives  of  the  people,  the 
priests,  could  do  so.  The  Tabernacle  proper  was  divided 
by  another  veil — not  by  solid  wall,  indicating  a  perma- 
nent division.  The  veil  formed  an  impassable  barrier  for 
the  time  to  all  but  the  High  Priest.  It  was  rent  and 
access  open  to  all  at  the  crucifixion .  The  veil  divided 
the  Tabernacle  into  two  unequal  departments.  1.  The 
Holy  Place  into  which  the  Priests  could  all  come.  2. 
Holy  of  Holies  into  which  the  High  Priest  could  go,  and 
he  only  on  the  great  day  of  atonement. 

The  three  stages  of  approach  represented — 

1.  The  Court  opened  to  the  people. 

2.  The  Holy  Place  opened  to  the  priests. 

3.  The  Holy  of  Holies  opened  to  the  High  Priest  once 
a  year. 

These  representatires  secured  access  and  showed  that 
free  entrance  was  only  temporarily  withheld.  The  gifts 
of  the  people  could  be  taken  in  by  the  priests.  The  sym- 
bols of  the  people  were  in  the  Holy  place.  These  sym- 
bols showed  that  in  time  they  might  enter  there. 

The  articles  in  the  Holy  of  Holies  signified  God's  rela- 
tion to  his  people.  Those  in  the  Holy  place  signified  the 
relation  of  the  people  to  God. 


44 

Description  of  the  Ark. 

It  was  a  wooden  chest,  overlaid  with  gold,  containing 
the  two  tables  of  the  Law.  The  cover  was  a  solid  slal) 
of  gold  on  which  the  two  cherubim  beaten  from  the  same 
slab. 

Two  Explanations. 

First. — Based  on  the  term  "Ark  of  the  testimony. ''^ 
Deut.  31 :  26.  The  book  of  the  Law  is  here  called  a  witness, 
^ow  it  is  said  that  this  "  book  of  the  Law  "  is  just  an 
expansion  of,  or  commentary  upon  the  tables  of  the  Law^ 
as  delivered  upon  Mount  Sinai.  The  book  was  put  in  the 
side  ot  the  ark  and  this  reveals  the  purpose  why  the  lables 
were  put  in  the  Ark.  The  "  Tables  of  testimony  ''  were 
so  called  because  they  are  the  testimony  against  the  sins 
of  the  people.  They  say  that  the  golden  Mercy  seat 
covers  up  this  testimony  of  the  sins  of  the  people;  and 
that  the  Hebrew  word  signifies  this.     This  is  defectke. 

(a)  When  God  pardons  the  sins  of  the  people,  he  covers 
their  guilt  or  sin  but  not  the  Law.  The  Law  is  not 
silenced  but  satisfied.  Paul  teaches  that  believers  are  free 
from  the  Law,  but  this  is  a  Xew  Testament  declaration. 

(b)  The  analogy  of  the  book  of  the  Law  being  put  in 
the  side  of  the  Ark  is  against  tbe  case  which  it  was  drawn 
to  adduce.  The  Books  should  have  been  put  where  the 
tables  were,  on  this  hypothesis. 

(c)  The  name  mercy-seat  [Kappordh.  Translated  daa- 
TJpiov  in  LXX  and  N.  T.)  does  not  mean  cover  or  lid,  as 
given  by  Gesenius.  There  is  a  Daghesh  forte  in  the  Pe, 
showing  that  the  Piel  is  meant,  signifying  to  propitiate  or 
forgive  sin.  It  was  the  i»lace  where  the  High  Priest 
made  expiation. 

Second  Explanation. — The  true  view  is  this  :  The 
tables  of  the  Law  were  God's  covenant  with  Israel  and 
therefore  their  most  sacred  treasure,  kept  in  the  Ark  as 
a  place  of  safety.  The  Golden  Mei-cy-seat  represents  the 
Throne  of  God.  God's  mercy  is  based  on  his  immutable 
Law.  It  was  golden,  to  show  the  perfection  and  beauty 
of  that  mercy.  Above  the  Mercy-seat,  between  the 
Cherubim,  was  the  Shekinah,  God's  manifested  glory. 
The  cloud  betokened  his  presence.     From  here  he  spoke 


! 


46 

with  Moses,  Ex.  25:  22.  Hence  God  is  said  to  dwell 
between  the  Cherubim.  He  occupied  this  throne  not  for 
wrath  or  vengeance,  but  tor  niercv.  It  was  the  Mercy- 
seat  to  re[)resent  the  presentation  and  acceptance  of  the 
blood  of  sacritice.  The  Clteriihirn  were  composite  figures, 
(Ex.  25  :  20)  having  the  face  of  a  man  and  wings.  Ez.  1 : 
5 :  10  :  20.  The  Cherubim  are  described,  but  not  exactly 
the  same  as  in  Exodus — Man,  Lion,  Ox,  Eagle.  Shows 
the  concentration  in  one  of  all  the  highest  and  noblest 
qualities  in  creation.  The  quintessence  of  creation,  ador- 
ing and  surrounding  the  throne  ot  God.  Such  compound 
figures  were  familiar  to  the  people  of  Assyria  and  Egypt, 
where  Moses  and  Ezekiel  lived.  The  Sphinx  of  Egypt 
consisted  of  the  body  of  a  lion  and  head  of  a  man.  The 
Eagle  was  the  king  of  birds :  the  Lion^  the  king  of  beasts  ; 
the  Ox,  the  chief  of  domestic  animals:  the  Man,  the  high- 
est of  intelligent  creation.  The  combination  of  these 
brings  together  the  most  noble  of  the  animate  creation. 
It  is  the  entire  animate  creation  condensed;  the  ideal 
embodiment  of  creation,  and  sets  forth  the  noblest  beings 
God  has  made.  These  were  not  actual  representations, 
for  the  descriptions  varv  in  different  parts  of  Scripture. 
In  Isaiah  6th,  six  wings  are  mentioned;  Ez.  1  :  (j,  four 
faces  and  four  wings ;  Ez.  41  :  18,  every  cherub  had  two 
faces ;  Kev.  4  :  7-8 — six  wings.  Though  not  described 
in  the  Pentateuch,  the  cherubim  of  the  Ark  had  one  face 
and  two  wings.  Each  beast  represented  one  of  the  ele- 
ments which  constituted  the  Cherubim.  (Seraphim  are 
probably  identical  with  Cherubim.)  These  variations  in 
form,  while  the  general  character  remains  the  same,  show- 
that  they  are  symbols  and  not  exact  images. 

This  appears  first  from  other  parts  of  Scripture.  (1) 
Gen.  3  :  24,  where  first  mentioned.  "  Place  at  the  east 
of  the  garden,"'  &c.  (2)  They  are  commonly  represented 
as  being  in  the  immediate  presence  of  God — Isaiah  6,  six 
wings;  Ezekiel  1,  "four  faces  and  four  wings;"  Ezekiel 
10,  "hands  under  the  wings;"  Rev.  4:  6,  "full  of  eyes 
before  and  behind  ;"  Psalm  18: 10,"  rode  upon  a  cherub." 
(3)  In  the  Mosaic  Ritual  they  are  at  the  ends  of  the  Mercy- 
seat,  and  therefore  near  the  Throne  of  God.  The  cur- 
tains were  wrought  with  Cherubim.  Ex.  26  :  1.  So  also 
the  Veil— Ex.  26  :  31.     The  High  Priest  could  enter  the 


46 

Holy  of  Holies  once  a  year,  but  the  Cherubim  remained 
there  continually.  So  ot  the  priests  in  the  Holy  Place 
and  the  Cherubim  there.  (4)  The  language  of  Peter,. 
(1  Peter  1  :  12)  contains  an  allusion  supposed  to  refer  ta 
the  posture  of  the  Cherubim,  with  their  faces  toward  the 
Ark.  Therefore  the  Cherabini  represented  the  Angels,  the 
highest  order  of  ci*eated  beings.  The  pure  gold  repre- 
sented their  purity  and  extreme  value.  In  Rev.  5  :  8-14, 
the  beasts  are  represented  as  leading  the  praises  of  the 
universe.  They  w^ere  one  piece  with  the  Mercy-seat, 
therefore  they  are  a  part  of  God's  throne,  the  ground  ot" 
his' dominion.  They  were  two  in  number,  in  order  to 
show,  perhaps,  that  they  were  not  a  representation  of  God 
himself.  They  were  bended  toward  the  Mercy-seat  with 
heads  bowed  in  loving  adoration.  The  Hol^i/  of  Holier 
was  a  perfect  cube.  The  New  Jerusalem  mentioned  in 
Revelation,  was  also  a  perfect  cube,  which  indicated  per- 
fection. The  perfect  symmetry  of  the  Holy  of  Holies 
represented  the  perfection  of  the  room  itself.  The  Holy 
Place  had  a  diminished  degree  of  perfection.  While  the 
Court  (only  5  cubits  high)  w^as  a  step  toward  perfection, 
it  was  not  to  be  compared  with  the  Holy  of  Holies.  The 
Holy  of  Holies  had  no  artificial  light.  The  Shekinah  was 
the  only  light.  The  I^ew  Jerusalem  needed  no  light,  for 
God  was  the  light. 

Was  the  Shekinah  permanent  ? — Ex.  40  :  34.  (1)  Some 
say  that  the  brilliancy  was  confined  to  the  times  when  it 
is  mentioned.  (2)  Tradition  says  that  it  was  continued 
down  to  the  time  of  the  Babylonish  captivity,  and  this  was 
one  reason  why  the  latter  temple  was  inferior  to  the  first. 
Lev.  16  :  2,  implies  that  the  Shekinah  was  there.  "  I 
will  appear  in  the  cloud  upon  the  mercy  seat."  Others 
think  that  the  cloud  meant  the  cloud  of  incense,  but  this 
is  wrong  conception. 

The  Holy  Place. 

The  Holy  Place  contained  (1)  the  Altar  q/  Incense,  (2) 
the  Tahle  of  Shew  Bread,  and  (3)  the  Candlestick. 

I.  That  of  Baehr,  As  these  were  in  God's  house,  he 
supposes  that  they  represented  something  belonging  to  or 
proceeding  from  God  himself.     The  table  was  merely  ta 


47 

receive  the  bread.  The  Shew  Bread,  (Lehem  Happanim) 
or  the  bread  of  the  face,  of  the  Divine  face,  according  to 
Baehr.  The  Bread  of  God  which  he  provides  for  his 
people;  twelve  loaves,  (Lev.  24:  5)  one  for  each  tribe.  It 
was  removed  every  Sabbath,  and  what  was  taken  away 
was,  eaten  by  the  priests  as  the  representatives  of  the 
people.  Baehr  says  it  represented  the  Bread  of  Life,  "  of 
which  if  a  man  eat,  he  shall  live  forever." 

The  Candlestick  was  for  the  sake  of  the  light  which  it 
was  to  shed.  Baehr  says  it  is  the  light  which  God  dis- 
penses to  his  people.  The  seven  branches  denoted  the 
perfection  of  tiie  light — Kev.  4:  5;  Psalm  12:  6.  Ac- 
cording to  Baehr,  it  was  the  centre  and  seat  of  spiritual 
light  and  lite.  These  two  articles  one  on  the  north  and 
the  other  on  the  south  side,  stand  in  relation  to  the  third 
article  placed  between  them  directly  in  front  of  the  ark, 
and  separated  from  it  only  by  a  veil,  /.  e.  the  Altar  of 
Incense.  Baehr  assumes  that  the  incense  means  the 
diffusion  of  the  Name  of  God,  i  e.  God  as  he  is  revealed, 
or  His  Spirit,  himself  veiled  from  sight  but  made  known 
by  the  Spirit.  The  lujht  and  //Ye-giving  Spirit.  Hence 
the  meaning  of  the  Shew  Bread  and  Candlestick.  Hence 
the  Holy  Place  is  the  place  where  the  Spirit  is  diffused  as 
the  source  of  spiritual  life  and  light.  This  opinion  is 
erroneous  and  at  variance  with  Scripture.  These  articles 
represented  what  belonged  to  God.,  but  not  necessarily 
what  proceeded  from  God.  The  furniturf^  of  the  Holy 
Place  represented  what  the  people  are  to  do  in  reference 
to  God.  The  Incense  was  the  symbol  oiicorship  andpi^ayer'. 
—Psalms  141 :  2 ;  Rev.  5:8;  8  :  3,  4 ;  Luke  1  :  10  ; 
Num.  16 :  46.  It  represented  the  intercession  of  the  High 
Priest — Lev.  1  :  16  ;  7  :  9.  To  burn  incense  was  to  offer 
worship.  It  is  often  mentioned  also  in  heathen  worship. 
There  is  no  symbol  about  which  there  is  less  difference  of 
opinion. 

The  Candlestick  is  explained  in  Scripture — Pev.  1:12- 
20  ;  Zech.  4.  It  was  a  symbol  of  the  church  or  people  of 
God.  ''  Ye  are  the  light  of  the  world.  Let  your  light 
so  shine,"  &c.  The  lanips  were  fed  with  oil,  which  is  a 
symbol  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  was  used  in  anointing 
Priests  and  Kings  to  signify  the  gift  of  needed  blessings. 
Referred  to  in  1  John  2  :  27.     The  oil  in  lamps  represented 


48 

the  Holy  Spirit  g\ven  to  the  church  as  the  i^ource  of  their 
kiiowledije,  holiness  and  joy. 

The  Table  of  Shew  Bread,  re])resented  what  the  people 
of  God  are  expected  to  do.  Service  to  he  rendered  ; — 
Lev.  24:  8,  9.  The  Bread  was  not  from  God  but  to  Him 
from  the  people.  12  loaves  =  1  for  each  tribe.  So  each 
tribe  had  a  share  in  the  offerino*.  Bread  is  the  fruit  of 
labor  and  toil,  and  represented  so  much  labor  done  for 
God.  It  also  represented  their  means  of  subsistence.  It 
denoted  that  their  lives  and  property  were  consecrated  to 
God.  It  denoted  the  devotion  of  their  activity  to  God's 
service.  Symbol  of  good  works.  Hence  incense  was 
placed  upon  it,  (Lev.  24 :  7]  to  denote  the  union  of  prayer 
and  good  works.  The  Bread  was  renewed  every  Sab- 
bath, showing  that  good  works  are  to  be  perpetual.  None 
could  eat  it  but  the  priests  This  shows  that  they  who 
work  for  God  are  fed  from  his  table.  David  ate  of  it 
when  in  need,  hence  we  see  that  the  outward  ceremony 
gave  way  to  a  case  of  necessity. 

Have  these  articles  of  furniture  any  significance  in 
themselves  ? 

1.  Some  say  not : — that  they  are  only  instrumental  and 
have  no  inherent  meaning,  hence  are  not  sN'mbolic.  This 
theory  is  not  true  for  we  know  that  the  Candlestick  was 
a  symbol  of  the  church. 

2.  Some  say  that  the  Altar  and  Table  were  symbols 
per  se,  as  the  Candlestick  and  the  Altar  represented  the 
Church  as  the  offerer  of  prayer,  and  the  Table  rep- 
resented the  Church  as  the  bearer  of  good  works.  This 
is  not  conclusive  for : 

(a.)  Although  the  Candlestick  is  a  symbol,  there  is  no 
such  declaration  as  to  the  Table  and  the  Altar. 

(b)  The  Altar  cannot  be  symbolical  of  the  church, 
because  it  must  always  have  the  same  meaning  and  this 
w^ould  not  apply  to  the  Altar  of  Burnt  Ofiering  in  the 
Court.  It  would  not  explain  the  horns  of  the  altar  and 
the  atonement. 

(c)  There  was  nothing  in  the  construction  of  the  Table 
or  Altar  to  fit  them  for  such  symbolism,  but  in  the  Candle- 
Mick  there  was. 

(d)  There  was  a  radical  difference  in  their  character. 
The  Candlestick  was  an  agent  in  producing  light ;  the  Altar 


49 

and  the  Table  were  not  ai^ents  in  producinii:  incense  and 
bread  and  therefore  cannot  represent  the  church  as  the 
offerer  and  performer.  They  only  receive  what  is  pre- 
pared elsewhere  They  were  but  vessels.  The  Bread 
o)i  tlie  tahle  becomes  the  oti:ering,  and  the  incense  on  the 
altar.  The  table  is  thus  a  modified  altar.  Simjdy  the 
place  to  which  the  ort'ering  is  brouii'ht.  The  candlestick 
is  not  merely  a  place  on  which  oil  is  poured  but  where 
light  \$r  ]>ro(/i(cc(l.  It  is  an  instrument  wliich,  by  the  infu- 
sion of  oil  and  fire,  gives  light.  As  to  its /on/?  and  material. 
The  Candlestick  was  made  of  gold  to  indicate  its  ourity — 
branching  and  with  buds  to  indicate  that  the  churrch  is  a 
tree,  spreading,  living,  thriving  and  fruitful.  The  symbols 
of  the  Holy  Place  therefore  represent  the  offerings  of 
God's  }>eople,  ])raver  and  o;ood  works,  and  the  people  of 
God. 

The  Fur^^iture  of  the  Court: 

The  Brazen  Altar  and  Laver. 

1.  Altar.  This  was  for  sacrifice  and  was  called  brazen 
from  its  hollow  frame  of  boards  overlaid  with  brass  or 
rather  bronze.  Ex.22:  1-8.  The  Altar  itself  was  made 
of  earth  and  stones.  Ex.  20:  24,  25.  This  shows  that  the 
ahar  was  not  a  human  structui-e  in  its  conception,  but  an 
ascent  toward  heaven,  signifying  drawing  near  to  God. 
Thus  Koah  sacrificed  on  Mt.  Ararat ;  Abraham  on  Mt. 
Moriah;  Moses  and  Aaron  communed  with  God  on  top 
of  Mt.  Sinai.  Ex.  24:  29.  There  was  a  tendency  to 
worship  God  on  the  tops  of  mountains  and  high  hills  and 
in  groves,  whose  silence  denoted  solemnity.  Gen.  21 :  33. 
Other  nations  had  this  idea.  Mt.  Olympus  in  Greece  was 
the  abode  of  their  Gods.  An  altar  represented  a  moun- 
tain in  miniature,  an  ascent  toward  heaven,  and  God 
comes  down  to  meet  the  offerer  there.  When  the  Greeks 
offered  to  the  Gods  of  the  lower  v/orld,  they  offered  in 
trenches.  The  word  altar  in  the  Heb.  Mizbeha  — to  lift 
up.  Altar  from  altas  high — Greek  [Hrj^a  from  fiacvoj.  Ex. 
20:  24.  There  was  such  a  place  to  meet  God  in  each 
division  of  the  Tabernacle.  In  the  Court,  the  Altar  of 
Burnt  Offering;  in  the  Holy  Place,  the  Altar  of  Incense; 
and  the  Mercy-seat  in  the  Holy  of  Holies.  The  divine 
presence  was  to  be  met  in  each,  and  expiation  and  forgive- 
Bes&  given  in  each  of  these  places.    This  rendered  the 


50 

Tabernacle  the  house  of  meeting  and  entitled  it  t-o  the 
name  of  the  House  of  God.  (2.)  Tlie  Laver, — Ex.  30: 
18.  It  is  less  minutely  described  than  any  other  article 
in  the  Tabernacle.  It  was  for  Aaron  and  his  sons  to  wash 
in,  when  they  went  into  the  Tabernacle  at  the  northern 
door,  or  approached  the  Altar,— Ex.  30:  19-21.  This 
symbolized  the  need  of  purity.  The  hands  doing  God's 
Avill  and  the  feet  treading  on  sacred  ground.  Moses  at  the 
burning  bush,  and  Joshua  in  the  presence  of  the  ca})taiii 
of  the  Lord's  host,  were  directed  to  loose  their  shoes  from 
off  their  feet.  The  Laver^  (Ex.  38  :  8)  was  made  of  the 
looking-Jlasses  or  metallic  mirrors  of  the  women.  These 
mirrors  were  converted  into  instruments  of  cleansing  and 
this  was  an  instance  of  consecrating  what  was  secuh^r  to 
sacred  ends. 

Other  cie.ws.  —  Some  make  wood  a  sj'mbol  of  life  and 
shittim  wood  of  immortality. 

Metals  light ;  gold,  splendor  of  heaven  ;  copper,  light  of 
God,  as  manifested  on  earth;  silver,  purity. 

This  is  overdone.  Wood  and  metal  most  accessible 
and  natural  materials — stone  unsuitable — shittim  wood 
onl}^  kind  available.  Temple  was  made  oi  cedar.  Purity 
and  brilliancy  adorned,  but  preciousness  was  considered — 
noblest  to  he  used.  Metals  disposed  in  order  of  value. 
Tabernacle  and  furniture  adorned  with  gold  —  silver 
sockets  intermediate.  Copper  used  in  court.  There  is 
a  gradation  in  use  according  to  value  and  prominence. 

Measurements. — Attention  is  drawn  to  recurrence  of 
particular  numbers — some  numbers  more  fit — how? 

One  is  uncompounded  —  two  is  dualistic  opposition — 

3  resolves  and  harmonizes.  In  pagan  world  3  represented 
superior  divinities.  Not  decided  whether  reference  is 
made  to  the  Trinity.  4  comes  from  3,  so  world  comes 
from  God.     Bight  angle  and  squares  '■ —  4  points,  4  sides, 

4  elements,  etc.  All  symbolical  numbers  are  resolvable 
into  these — 3  +  4=  God  +  world  —  7,  or  totality  of  the 
universe.  Circumcision  after  7  days, — Feast  for  7  days, — 
Purification  7  days,  —  Sabbath  every  seventh  day,  — 
7  planets, — wise  men  7.  3  X  4  =  12  =  universe  gov- 
erned by  God.  12  tribes  —  12  jewels  in  breastplate  — 
12  stones  on  Jordan — 12  apostles — 12  gates  in  new  Jeru- 
salem— 12  signs  of  Zodiac. 


51 

l-t-2-j-3-|-4=:10  —  symbol  ot  completeness,  10  com- 
mandments—10  plagues — yig-  tithe. 

It  is  more  satisfactory  to  take  a  realistic  view.  7  derived 
its  sacredness  tVoni  creation  ;  —  12,  number  ot"  sons  of 
Jacob; — 10,  from  universal  decimal  division  of  numbers; 
ten  figures,  —  representative  number  of  completeness. 
Few  numbers  can  be  explained  by  convenience^  but  by  this 
way.  3  degrees  of  comparison, — 4  symmetry,—  7  lamps, — 
12  loaves —  4  X  12  boards, —  4  cu.  wide, — 4  X  7  curtains 
— 10  unit  for  terrestrial  measurements  — 5  of  court  — silver 
sockets  10  X  10,  &c. 

• 

Mosaic  Origin  of  Tabernacle. 

Critical  Objections.  I.  The  people  had  not  wealth,  skill 
or  leisure  to  construct  such  an  edifice.  But,  valuables 
brouo'lit  from  Egypt  helped  them,  and  their  long  stav  in 
Eo:ypt  had  given  them  skill.  Ex.  12:  35,  36.  "Cf.  "Ex. 
19:  1;  24:  18;  34:  28;  40:  17. 

IL  Alleged  conflicting  accounts  respecting  time,  and 
location  ot  Tabernacle.  &c. 

(a)  Ex.  33:  1-11  alleged  to  be  account  of  departure 
from  Sinai  differing  from  Num.  10  :  11  sq.  Knobel  says 
because  of  sin  of  Golden  Calf  they  wept.  Dillman  ex- 
punges V.   3,  (for  I  will  not,   &c.,)  and  v.  5,  (ye  are  a 

consume  thee).     As  text  stands  God's  presence  is 

contrasted  with  God's  angel.  Angel  v.  3,  same  as  Ex. 
23:  20  sq.  Dillman  thinks  that  this  is  not  the  meaning 
of  passage  because  God's  angel  =  God.  According  to 
present  text  people  mourn  because  God  will  not  go  with 
them  ;  Dillman  says,  they  are  grieved  because  they  are 
leaving  Sinai  where  God's  p)resence  has  been  manifested. 
They  stripped  themselves  of  ornaments  for  building  taber- 
nacle, account  of  which  has  been  left  out  between  vs.  6  and 
7,  herein  contrary  to  Ch.  35  :  40.  In  7th  verse  the  Taber- 
nacle is  spoken  of  as  already  made. 

(b)  Tabernacle  located  outside  of  camp,  contrary  to 
JSTum.  Ch.  2.  Verbs  in  fut.,  in  Ex.  33:  7-11  denoting 
customary  action.  Num.  10  :  33 ;  Josh.  3  :  3,  4  ark  pre- 
cede the  host  contradictory  to  Num.  10:  26;  Num.  11: 
26,  ^'  in  the  Camp,"  contrasted  with  "  going  out  into  the 
Tabernacle." 


(c)  Ex.  33:  11:  Joshua  an  Ephraimito  in  the  Taber- 
'nacle,  contrary  to  ^N'uni.  3 :  10-38:  18:  7.  But  only 
-revelation  spoken  of,  not  sacrifice.  Tabernacle  a  simple 
tent,  not  an  elaborate  structure. 

Ansicer — (a).  These  discrepancies  are  due  to  the  critics 
themselves.  Passages  are  taken  out  of  context,  expurgated 
and  interpolated  b}^  critics.  The  Sin  of  Golden  Calf  had 
broken  the  Covenant,  God  refuses  to  recognize  Israel  as 
his  people.  People  which  Moses  had  brought  out.  Not 
angel  of  Jehovah,  but  a  mere  angel.  Xow  the  people 
TQOurn  and  lay  off  their  ornaments:  no  gift  from  the 
peoj^le  would  have  been  acceptable,  (b).  A  visible  token 
of  God's  estrangement  was  given  by  makinii;  a  lent  out- 
side the  Camp.'  "The  tent"  Ex.  33:  7;  (1)  Moses' o?i;?i 
as  LXX.  and  Ex.  18:  7;  (2)  are  previously  in  use  and 
well  known,  though  not  before  mentioned.  Cf.  Ex.  19: 
22.  (3).  Definite  in  writer's  mind.  Definite  article  only 
proves  this.  Cf.  Gen.  14  :  13  ;  Num.  11 :  27 ;  1  Sam.  9  :  9. 
Pitching  outside  of  Camp  was  temporary  and  significant, 
because  not  ordinary.  Nothing  in  passage  to  intimate 
that  this  was  customary  except  so  long  as  this  state  of 
things  lasted. 

(c)  That  God  revealed  His  uill  and  no  mention  is  made 
of  sacrifice  is  because  laws  of  sacrifice  were  not  yet 
promulgated  and  Joshua  was  there  because  a  Levite  and 
Aaron  not  yet  set  apart.  Ex.  34 :  10  sq.  Provisional 
Tabernacle  again  alluded  to  in  Ex.  34:  34,  35. 

(d)  Alleged  that  Mosaic  Tabernacle  is  not  mentioned  in 
historical  books  except  in  Joshua  until  David.  They 
fliscredit  Joshua  or  attach  to  Pentateuch,  .-.  not  men- 
tioned at  all.  Chronicles  which  mentions  it  was  written 
after  the  exile,  and  when  mentioned  it  is  speaking  of  the 
time  of  David  and  Solomon.  But  it  is  based  on  earlier 
and  well-authenticated  manuscripts.  They  say  Assyrian 
Captivity  referred  to  in  Judges. 

But:  Judges,  Samuel  and  Kings  are  not  silent.  Jud. 
18 :  30,  31,  cf.  Josh.  18  :  1,  "  Captivity  of  Land."  So  I. 
^Sam.  4:  10,  11,  22,  cf.  Ps.  78  :  60,  61.  Jud.  19:  18;  21  : 
19  in  early  part  of  period  of  Judges.  Jud.  18:1,  20,  28  ; 
at  close  of  this  period;  I  Sam.  1:  3-7;  not  local  sanctuary 
2 :  14  :  Mosaic  2  :  22. 


53 

(e)  Alleged  that  it  \vas  not  a  tent  hut  a  liouse.  I  Sam.. 
1:  7,  24;  3:  15;  Jud.  18:  81;  19:  18.  A  Temple,  I  Sam. 
1 :  9 ;  2 :  3  Cf.  II  Sam.  7:2:1  Chr.  6  :  32,  with  posts  1:9. 
and  doors  8:15;  and  in  which  Samuel  slept,  I  Sam.  3 :  3. 
Therefore  it  is  said  it  had  doors  and  door-posts,  and  fold- 
ing doors.     And  Samuel  slept  in  Tahernaele  of  God. 

But:  (1)  Gen.  28:  7  Jaeoh  speaks  of  Bethel  "House 
of  God,"'  and  no  tent  hut  only  a  stone.  E.\.  28:  19;  34: 
26;  Deut.  23:  18;  Josh.  (J  :  24:  IT  Sam.  12:  20;  Cf  6: 
17;  I  Chr.  6:  31,  32:  Ps.  23  :  6;  52:  8;  55:  14:  102: 
1 ;  18  :  6  :  29  :  9  ;  68  :  29;  5:7;  63:  4  ;  especialhj  Ps.  27  : 
4,  5,  6.  Exodus  speaks  of  "  House  of  the  Lord,"  and  also 
Samuel,  II  Sam.  7  :  76. 

(2)  As^ainthat  it  was  same  sanctuary, — candlestick  and 
ark.  1  Sam.  2  :  22,  28  ;  3:3;  4:4  expresslj-  said  to  be 
the  Tabernacle.  God  said  in  the  time  of  David  he  had 
never  dwelt  in  a  house  inade  with  hands. 

(3)  Dours  :  TI  Sam.  7  :  6 ;  I  Chr.  17  :  5  :  I  Kings  8  :  6. 
During  long  abode  solid  stru<?tures  ina\-  have  been  built: 
around  it  in  which  Samuel  slept. 

(f)  Alleged  that  there  was  another  tem|.)le  at  JS^ob. 
But:   when  the  ark  was  captured  God  forsook  Shiloh ; 

and  in  the  reign  of  Saul  the  Tabernacle  was  removed  to 
Kob  :  I  Sam.  21  where  was  same  priesthood  as  formerly 
at  Shiloh.  I  Sam.  22  :  1  ;  Cf  14  :  3 ;  also  I  Sam.  22:  20; 
28  :  6,  Cf  I  Kings,  2  :  27  ;  the  Shew  Bread,  I  Sam.  21 :  6; 
the  Ephod  V.  9  :  the  place  for  in(|uiry  of  the  Lord,  22 :  10, 
15.  Ark  was  not  returned  to  Tabernacle  when  Ephod 
was  brought  away,  David  hid  in  his  camp,  23:  2,  4,  9. 
When  Nob  was  destroyed,  I  Sam.  22  :  19  the  Tabernacle 
was  removed  to  Gibeon,!  Chr.  21  :  29:  II  Chr  1:3;  and 
thence  taken  to  the  temple,  I  K.  8  :  4. 

Great  pains  have  been  taken  to  show  that  this  is  David's 
tent.  They  say  if  tabernacle  had  heen  in  existence  ark 
would  have  been  returned  to  it,  but  it  was  kept  inKirjath 
Jearim  at  a  private  house  until  David  took  it  to  Mt.  Zion. 
This  was  not  David's  tent  because  thev  are  distimj^uished 
from  each  other.  I  Chr.  16  :  1  ;  37  :  39  :  II  Chr.^1 :  3,  4 
Ewald  says,  IMiilistines  destroyed  Shiloh,  but  God's  allow- 
ing the  ark  to  be  taken  was  his  forsaking  Israel.  (Jer.  7r 
12,  14).  Why  was  ark  kept  in  a  private  house  ?  I  Sam. 
7:1:  .](i\\  7:   12,14;   26:  6:    Ps.  78:   56-64:   I  Sam.  6r 


54 

19,  ^c.  Wlien  Ismel  lamented  loss  of  ark  (I  Sam.  6) 
repentance  was  required.  Xot  till  David  (TI  Sam.  6)  was 
Israel  restored. 

It  is  said  if  Moses'  Tabernacle  had  been  in  existence 
David  would  have  transferred  it.  But  David  saw  a  new 
stage  was  begun.  Unsettled  wandering  was  represented 
by  tent.  Permanent  location  (II  Sam.  7:10)  David 
was  forbidden  to  build,  but  Solomon.  lie  made  a  tem- 
porary resting  place  till  Solomon  should  build. 

It  is  said  that  if  Solomon  could  have  offered  6000  bul- 
locks it  was  sufficient.  But  Solomon  had  new  vessels 
I  K.  7 :  40-48.  Also  said  that  descri|)tion  of  the  Taber- 
nacle was  after  idea  of  Temple.  The  points  of  the  com- 
pass determined  its  position.  This  only  means  it. was 
always  set  this  way  and  not  that  it  was  fixed.  The  side 
of  ark  was  not  toward  south  of  Palestine  but  toward  the 
South .     G  u  1  f  of  M e X  i  c o  an  d  S  o u th . 

Sacred  iVcTioNS. — Sacrifices. 

Thcj'e  aro  f>ro  classes  of  sacred  actions:  (1)  offerings, 
(2)  purifications.  Ofierings  were  the  most  sacred  and 
could  be  performed  only  at  the  sanctuary.  Purification 
could  be  performed  anywhere.  Tlie  word  ofiering  = 
KoRBAN  —  o(7)(>ou  =  [lift.  This  word,  used  also  in  Mark  7: 
11,  denotes  anything  brought  near  to  God,  and  hence  in- 
cludes what  was  brought  to  adorn  the  Sanctuary  and  to 
maintain  the  Priests,  as  well  as  those  for  offerings. 

1.  Gifts  for  the  [[ouse  of  God. 

2.  "         '^        Ministers  of  God. 

3.  ''  ''        God  himself=oficrings. 

Those  designed  for  the  Altar  are  :  (a.)  Aniiiial  or 
bloody,  (b)  Vegetable  or  bloodless.  The  first  consisted 
of  oxen,  sheep  and  goats,  and  in  cases  of  extreme  pov- 
erty, doves  and  pigeons.  The  second  consisted  of  grain 
and  fiour,  oil  and  wine,  brea  :  ov  cakes.  Salt  and  incense 
were  added  as  an  accompaniment  but  w^ere  not  a  part  of 
the  offering.     Honey  and  leaven  were  expressly  proliibited. 

Why  were  these  particular  objects  offered  ?  The  answer 
depends  on  the  ideas  held  as  to  what  the  sacrifice  repre- 
sented. 


I.  Jlatcrudisttc  Vietr.  Tliat  it  was  iiitetuled  as  food  for 
the  deity.  Those  were  given  him  because  tliey  were  the 
usual  articles  of  foo<],  which  he  needed  as  Avell  as  lit^lit 
and  shelter.  Answer — 1.  This  is  utterly  inconsistent 
with  the  character  of  God.  It  is  opposed  to  the  S/nrUu- 
fiUti/  of  Gody  which  was  constantly  taught.  Ps.  50  :  12-13. 
^  2.  The  principal  and  most  essential  element  of  the  sacri- 
fice was-  blood,  and  this  was  expressly  prohibited  as  food. 
ir.  Pecuniar)/  Vine.  That  the  sacrifice  was  a  penalty  or 
iine  exacted  as  a  condition  of  [pardon  ;  and  that  the  mate- 
rial offered  re[)resented  their  wealth  and  propert}'.  An- 
swer— 1.  The  |)rominence  given  to  blood  is  not  explained 
by  this.  •2.  Tlie  limitation  in  the  objects  offered  is  not 
€xplained.  AV  by  would  not  camels,  asses,  costly  garments 
and  furniture  answer  equally  well  ? 

III.  E.K<:-Uf.slcehjTi/picalVicu:  That  the  sole  design  was 
to  prefigure  Clirlst  and  his  work,  and  the  materials  selected 
were  to  set  forth  his  [)ersoiial  qualities  of  a  Redeemer,  or 
his  official  character,  or  the  nature  of  his  ^^•ork.  Answer 
— This  is  defective  for:  (1.)  It  is  a  mistake  to  suppose 
that  this  is  the  sole  object.  The  design  of  types  is  to  set 
forth  truths  and  not  to  delineate  objects.  (2)  This  leads 
to  far-fetched  ex[)lanations  and  analogies.  If  a  lamb  was 
sacrificed  to  represent  Christ,  why  not  a  Lion,  since  he 
was  called  the  Ijion  of  the  tribe  of  Judah  ?  Why  were 
bulls  and  goats  sacrificed,  since  they  are  represented  in 
the  Scripture-  as  enemies,  (Ps.  22:  12  and  Matt.  25:  3) 
and  why  not  the  roe  and  hart.  Canticles  2  :  17  ? 

What  i^articular  qualities  were  each  designed  to  repre- 
sent ?  Why  were  different  animals  offered,  and  why  of 
different  age  and  sex  ?  Why  sacrificed  at  different  times  ? 
Why  grain,  and  why  so  prepared  ?  Some  say  that  the 
fine  flour  represented  Christ's  sufferings  from  the  fact  of 
its  being  ground  ;  and  cakes,  because  they  were  prepared 
by  fire.  (3  )  These  allusions  would  have  been  utterly 
unintelligible  to  the  Jews,  and  thus  the  types  would  have 
failed  of  their  ol)ject. 

IV.  SpirituaUstic  View.  That  the  sacrifice  represented 
the  inward  spiritual  transaction  of  the  offerer.  The  ani- 
mal repiesented  the  offerer.  The  death  of  the  animal 
represented  his  death  for  sin.  The  presentation  of  blood 
represented   the  consecration   of  his  life  to   God,  hence 


5(^ 

those  objects  are  proper  to  be  offered  which  best  s^i-ve  as 
symbols  of  the  ofterer. 

Answer — (1.)  A  sacrifice  would  then  signify  an  inward 
change  of  heart  but  no  atonement  for  sin.  Lev,  1 :  4. 
(2.)  There  is  no  foundation  in  Scripture  tor  the  assump- 
tion that  the  sacriiice  represented  the  otferer  himself.  It 
symbolized  not  a  sinner  but  a  sinless  being.  The  heathen 
offerings  vary  according  to  the  divinity  and  not  according 
to  the  offerer.  The  animal  ^^•as  not  chosen  as  a  repre- 
sentative of  man,  but  as  one  acceptable  to  the  divinity. 
(3.)  The  thing  to  be  represented  is  forgiveness  and  puriil-* 
cation.  This,  the  sacrifice  of  the  animal  could  not  teach. 
There  is  nothing  to  suggest  a  return  to  spiritual  life. 
The  animal  remains  dead,  unlike  the  case  of  the  purifica- 
tion of  the  leper.     Lev.  14  :  49-53. 

V.  Tlie  True  View.  That  the  offerings  were  to  set  forth 
(a)  Expiation  for  sin,  and  (b)  Consecration  to  Ood;=a 
vicarious  atonement  and  an  oblation  to  God.  The  animal 
sacrifices  showed  both,  the  vegetable  only  the  latter.  The 
victim  is  not  a  symbol  of  rhc  off<3rer^  but  a  substitute. 
The  substitute  is  slain  ;  showing  that  the  forfeited  life  has 
been  taken.     The  arguments  in  favor  of  this: 

1.  This  is  the  old  tradiUonal  ri.ei(\ 

2.  This  will  explain  all  i\)rms  of  the  service. 

3.  This  is  in  accordance  with  scripture. 

4.  This  is  conformable  to  the  design  of  Christ's  death. 

5.  This  presents  the  most  satisfactory  explanation  for 
the  limitation  of  animals  in  the  sacrifice.     An  oblation 

(1.)  Must  be  his  own  possession. 

(2.)  The  product  of  his  toil.  This  excludes  spontaneous 
productions,  and  fruits  and  wild  animals. 

(3.)  It  should  be  his  food  by  which  his  life  is  sustained, 
as  a  pledge  of  his  life  being  consecrated  to  Cod.  This  ex- 
cludes what  may  be  raised  for  show,  &c. 

A  Substitute  must  be  (1.)  an  animal  having  a  life  to  give. 
Lev.  5:  11  is  the  only  exception,  and  it  proves  the  rule. 
(2.)  This  life  must  be  a  sinless  life,  not  only  negatively 
but  positively ;  clean  and  without  blemish ;  at  least  in  a 
symbolic  and  ceremonial  sense.  This  last  consideration 
excludes  human  sacrifice.  (3.)  Yet  a  substitute  should 
possess  a  community  of  nature  with  the  offerer,  hence  the 
use  of  domestic  animals  as  being  most  closely  allied  to 
man. 


0  1 


Significance  of  these  vVcts. 

Mejininic  of  the  acts  included  in  the  Animal  Sacrifice, 
Lev.  1  :  1-9.  After  the  presentation  of  the  victim  at  the 
Tabernacle  the  sacrificial  service  included  :  1.  Laying  on  * 
of  bands.  2.  Killing- the  victini.  8.  Sprinkling  the  blood. 
4.  Burning  the  animal  eitlier  whole  or  in  part.  Besides 
these  there  were,  5.  Pecuniarv  compensation  in  the  tres- 
pass offering,  and  6.  A  sacrificial  feast  in  the  peace  offer- 
ing.    The  first  four  were  common  to  all  sacrifices. 

I.  Laying  on  i)f  hands.  Lev.  1:  4.  The  offerer  ])ut  bis 
hand  on  the  head  of  the  animal.  The  imposition  of  bands 
is  always  employed  in  Scri[)ture  to  denote  the  impartation 
of  something  bv  a  person  authorized  or  (pialified  to  do  so. 

(1)  Gkimi  Blcssmq.    Gen   48 :  13,14:   Matt.  19:  12-15. 

(2)  Gkirif)  Hobj  Ghosl.     Acts  8 :  17-18:   19:  6. 

(3)  Coiiferrwcj  Office.  Deut.  84:9:  Xum.  8:  16:  Acts 
6:  6;  I  Tim.  4:  IL. 

(4)  Impartation  of  Miraculxnis  Vlrtiic.  Mattli.  9  :  18 ; 
Mark,  6:  5. 

(5)  \Vitiies.^cs  laid  hands  on  a  hta-'iphemcrsi  head.  Lev. 
24:  14.     Putting  guilt  where  it  belongs. 

This  ceremony  always  denotes  the  impartation  of  some- 
thing, and  refutes  all  views  in  whicli  this  element  is  not 
found. 

First  Vieu\  Philo  says  that  it  is  an  exhibition  of  the 
bands  of  the  offerer,  and  denotes  bis  innocence.  This  is 
not  true,  for  a  different  ceremony  would  have  Ijeen  more 
appropriate,  sucb  as  the  washing  of  hands.    E.  g.  T*ilate. 

Second.  Vieir.  That  it  designated  the  animal  as  the 
property  of  the  offerer,  corresponding  to  tbe  Roman 
ceremonyof  manumission  of  slaves,  and  his  consecration 
of  it  to  God.  But  both  these  ideas  were  shown  sufficiently 
by  the  acr  of  bringing  the  animal  to  the  Sanctuary. 

Third  View.  That  it  was  a  solemn  cem-^ecration  of  the 
victim,  but  if  so,  tbe  priest,  and  not  the  offerer,  would 
bave  laid  his  band  upori  it. 

Fourth  and  true  View.  It  can  only  mean  tbat  tbe  guilt 
of  tlie  offerer  is  transferred  to  the  victim — not  his  moral 
cbaracter,  but  bis  liability  to  punishment.   Tliis  appears: 

(1.)  From  express  explanation  of  this  ceremony  in  Lev\ 
16:  21.    (2.)  It   may   be   inferred  from  the  position  whicli 


58 

the  lajino:  on  of  hands  holds  in  the  sacrilicial  service. 
It  occurs  in  all  animal  sacrifices,  except  that  of  doves,  and 
never  in  the  vegetahle  offerings.  This  shows  that  it  must 
be  related  to  something  peculiar  to  the  animal  sacrifice, 
i.  e.,  the  atonement.  This  act  is  done  by  the  offerer,  and 
not  by  the  priest,  and  therefore  indicates  something  con- 
nected with  himself  It  also  follows  the  presentation  of 
the  victim  and  immediately  precedes  the  slaughter.  The 
effect  of  imposition  of  hands  is  to  qualify  the  victim  to 
make  atonement  for  the  sin  of  the  offerer.  Lev.  1  :  4. 
(3.)  This  is  the  ancient,  traditional,  and  commonly 
received  explanation 

Some  recent  interpreters  have  made  a  distinction  in  the 
signification  of  this  ceremony  in  the  different  kinds 
of  sacrifices.  Holding  that  in  the  sin-offerinfj  it  denoted  a 
transfer  of  the  guilt  of  the  offerer,  but  in  the  hurnt-offn'- 
Wfi  it  signified  the  desire  of  the  offerer  to  be  consecrated 
to  God.  In  the  pface-offering  it  denoted  gratitude  and 
thankfulness  to  God.  Rephj. — (a.)  Although  the  ultimate 
aim  is  different  in  each,  the  immediate  end  is  the  same  in 
all,  /.  c,  atonement  for  sin.  (b.)  Tlie  transfer  of  legal 
relations  is  easily  comprehended,  out  we  cannot  conceive 
of  a  transfer  of  the  emotions  of  the  offerer,  (c.)  Lev.  1  :  4 
expressly  says  that  the  acceptance  of  tlie  atonement  de- 
pends on  the  laying  on  of  hands  in  the  burnt-offering. 
The  liands  were  laid  on  the  head  not  for  convenience 
sake,  but  because  the  penalty  was  a  capital  one. 

IL  Slaying  of  the  Sacrifice.  The  infliction  of  the  pen- 
alty. It  showed  the  doctrine  of  substitution  which  is 
taught  in  Isaiah  53.     Various  rieirs. 

1.  Some  say  that  slaying  here  means  only  renunciation 
of  the  victim  and  surrender  of  it  to  God  on  the  part  of 
the  offerer.  Tlie  death  rendering  it  useless  to  the  offerer. 
Complete  consecration  to  God.  This  falls  with  the  error 
on  which  it  is  based,  which  is  not  analogous  to  the  Roman 
custom  of  manumission 

2.  SpiritaaUstic  Vieir. — That  it  j-epresented  the  dying  of 
a  sinfid  nature  and  the  giving  up  of  a  worldly  life,  and 
obtaining  communion  with  God  by  presentation  at  his 
altar. 

Answer  —  (1.)  The  victim  was  not  a  symbol  of  the 
offerer,  but  a  sinless  substitute.     (2.)  The  life  of  the  ani- 


59 


iiial  ciiniiot  re])i"eseMt  ii  siiirul  life.  Tliu  iuiputtition  ol  .sin 
transfers  the  liability  to  punishment,  and  not  tlie  moral 
character.  Christ  was  our  substitute,  but  did  not  possess 
our  sinful  nature.  (o.)  The  death  of  one  to  whom  sin  is 
imputed  cannot  be  the  medium  of  brin^-ini::  the  offerer 
near  to  God,  except  as  being  a  substitute  for  him.  (4.) 
This  makes  itiward  holiness  the  i>:round  of  pardon,  and 
sanctitication  t<>  precede  justification.  The  death  of  the 
animal  here  means  that  the  offerer  thus  dies  unto  sin, 
whereas  his  sin  must  be  atoned  for  as  a  preliminai'v  to  his 
being  brought  into  communion  with  God. 

3.  This  view  regards  the  d<ni'w(i  as  merely  an  indispen- 
sable means  of  securing  the  blood  and  flesh,  and  lias  no 
significance  in  or  of  itself,  exce|>t  as  a  penalty. 

"Answer— (1.)  The  slaying  of  the  victim  was  an  integral 
part  of  the  ritual,  prescribed  to  be  done  at  the  Tabernacle 
in  the  presence  of  the  priests,  &e.  (2.)  This  is  tantamount 
to  a  confession  that  it  is  the  |)enalty  of  the  law  endured 
in  the  offerer's  stead. 

4.  Penal  View.  —  It  has  been  objected  to  this  true  penal 
view,  (1)  that  the  victim  was  slain  by  the  offerer  and  not 
by  the  priest. 

Answer — (a  )  The  sinner  is  hi;;  own  destroyer,  (b.) 
The  sinner  is  iiis  own  accuser  and  confessor,  (c.)  It  is 
typically  significant  of  Christ.  Doves  n-crc  slain  by  the 
priests  because  of  the  scarcity  of  blood. 

Ohjecfion  (2.) — This  makes  the  slaying  of  more  conse- 
quence than  the  sprinkling.  Answer — (a.)  In  a  judicial 
view,  it  is  still  the  s[)rinkling  which  actually  effects  the 
expiation.  (b.)  The  slaying  is  an  e([ually  essential  part 
of  the  ritual. 

TIL  Sprinldhici  of  the  Blood— iJiffhrnf  Vietr.s.  —  \.  That 
it  was  the  complrnwht  to  the  act  of  slaying.  This  is  not 
so,  for  (a.)  The  blood  was  not  wasted  but  carefully  gath- 
ered, and  (b.)  It  was  brought  to  a  specified  place  and  used 
in  a  ju'escribed  way. 

2.  SpirUu  all  stir  Vietr. — That  the  bringing  of  the  blood, 
Avhich  is  the  life,  to  the  altar,  represented  that  the  life  of 
the  offerer  shall  be  made  holy  and  sanctified  Answer — 
(a.)  According  to  Lev.  1:4;  7  :  11,  the  blood  makes  the 
atonement  and  is  not  itself  atoned  for.  (b.)  It  is  distin- 
guished from  the  offerer  as  making  the  atonement  for 
him,  not  as  a  symbol,  but  a  sahstitnfr. 


60 

8.  The  blood  was  sprinkled  upon  tlie  saered  vessels 
because  they  were  regarded  as  detiled  by  the  sins  of  the 
people,  and  the  blood  covered  this  defilement.  This  is 
argued  from  Lev.  16:  15-19.  Answer — la.)  It  would  be 
more  natural  to  sprinkle  the  ofi:erer  himself,  who  was  the 
sinner.  (b.)  A  separate  service  was  used  for  the  atone- 
ment of  the  Sanctuary  once  a  year,  but  not  in  every  sac- 
rifice. 

4.  True  Vkno. — It  is  an  exhibition  at  the  altar  of  the 
blood  which  has  been  shed  for  the  ofi'erer,  and  represents 
expiation  and  that  death  has  been  sufi-'ercd.  The  blood 
was  sprinkled  (1)  on  the  Brazen  Altar;  (2)  at  the  Golden 
Altar  of  Iiicense  ;  (3)  at  the  Mercy  seat — at  places  where 
God  especially  met  with  his  people.  The  fact  of  his  re- 
quiring it  to  be  placed  there,  denoted  his  acceptance  of  it. 

lY.^ Burning  of  the  Victim  at  the  Altar.  With  the 
sprinkling,  the  atonement  was  completed.  Now  comes 
the  oblation,  which  w^as  accomplished  by  burning  the 
victim.  This  was  common  to  the  animal  and  vegetable 
offering.  Some  regarded  the  fire  as  the  wrath  of  God, 
showing  that  temporal  death  did  not  exhaust  the  penalty 
of  the  law,  but  that  the  vengeance  of  eternal  tire  should 
follow.  Answer — (a.)  Fire  may  be  regarded  as  a  purifier 
as  well  as  a  destroyer.  It  leaves  the  earthly  portion  here 
and  carries  the  rest  heavenward,  (b.)  The  whole  penalty 
of  the  law  is  represented  l)y  the  death  of  the  victim,  (c.) 
This  burning  follows  the  sprinkling,  by  which  expiation 
has  been  already  efteeted.  (d.)  The  victim  is  said  to  be  a 
sweet  savor  unto  the  Lord.— rLev.  1  :  9.  (e.)  The  blood- 
less ofiering  was  also  burned  on  the  altar.  There  was  no 
sin  represented  in  these  offerings,  hence  the  symbol  must 
mean  the  same  in  both  cases.  The  fire  carries  the  sacrifice 
to  God  relieved  from  all  earthly  dross.  It  is  an  oblation 
of  food  made  to  Ilim — Lev.  21 :  6-8.  It  is  a  tribute  re- 
turned to  God  for  most  necessary  gifts — not  to  absolve 
from  further  consecration,  but  pledges  property,  labor  and 
life,  all  to  God.  Rom.  12:  1;  Psalms  40:  6-8.  The 
animal  was  skinned,  for  the  skin  was  not  used  foi*  food, 
and  the  flesh  washed,  so  that  the  offering  might  be  clean 
— free  from  defilement. 


61 

Different  Kinds  of  Sacrifice. 

They  were  not  first  instituted  by  Moses.  They  existed 
from  tlie  earliest  Bible  History.  Moses  modified,  regulated 
and  enlarged  them.  What  had  been  left  to  the  pleasure 
of  the  otferer,  was  now  explieitly  determined  by  Divine 
statute.  Rigor,  precision  and  eon)plexity  succeed  freedom 
and  simplicity,  &c.  This  was  progress.  The  elements 
were  separated  and  made  distinct  to  the  mind  of  the 
oflerer  with  an  ultimate  reference  to  Christ.  The  Barnt- 
offcrinfi  was  the  [)rincipal  form  in  ths  Patriarchal  System. 
Besides  this  was  the  ''  Sacrifice.''  Gen.  46  :  1.  In  Ex. 
10  :  25,  this  is  distinguished  from  the  the  burnt-offerino^. 
In  Gen.  81  :  54,  a  sacrificial  feast  formed  part  of  the 
service.  This  must  have  corresponded  to  the  Peace- 
offering.  VegetaJde-offering,  Gen.  4:3;  Drink-oferiiig,  Gen. 
35  :  14. — Tiuit  the^e  were  not  distinct  offerings  in  former 
times  appears  from  Gen.  8 :  20,  where  Noah  offers  a 
Burnt- offering.  The  Mosaic  ritual  would  have  required  a 
P^^rtct'- offering.  See  also  Job  1  :  5;  42:  8.  i^i^r/i/- offer- 
ings instead  of  ^S'/y^-ofterings. 

There  were  two  ideas  \n  the  Sacrifices  :  1.  Atonement — 
— Expiation  by  sprinkling  of  blood.  2.  Oblation — Con- 
secration by  burning  on  the  altar.  The  Sin-offering 
emphasizes  Atonement.  The  Burnt-offering  emphasizes 
Oblation, — whole  victim  burned. 

There  were  two  other  offerings  :  3.  Trespass- o^evm^., 
with  the  idea  of  satisfaction  by  pecuniary  compensation. 
4,  Peace-o^Qving^  with  the  idea  of  restored  communion 
with  God  by  means  of  a  sacrificial  feast.  AVhen  different 
kinds  of  sacrifices  are  to  be  offered  together  they  are 
invariabh'  named  in  order^  and  Sin-offering  always  pre- 
cedes Burnt-offering,  and  both  of  these  before  the  Feacc- 
offering.  Ex.  29  :  14, 18,  24.  Judges  20  :  26  ;  Ez.  45  :  17. 
The  Sin  and  Trespass  offerings  were  designed  to  restore 
the  Theocratic  relations  with  God.  The  Burnt  and  Peace- 
offerings,  to  express  and  maintain  these  relations. 

I.  Distinction  between  the  Sin  and  Trespass-offer- 
iN(is.  Various  Opinions. — 1.  That  there  was  no  real 
difference.  The  offerer  could  do  as  he  chose.  2.  That 
the  Sin-offering  was  for  sins  of  ignorance,  and  the  Tres- 
pass-offering for  other  reri/V/?  sins.     3.  That  the  Sin-offering 


62 

was  for  sins  of  omission,  and  the  Trespass-oifering  for  sins 
of  commission.  4.  That  the  Sin-otferings  were  for  sins 
voluntarily  confessed,  and  the  Trespass-offerings  for  sins 
proven  by  testimony.  5.  That  the  Sin-offering  was  for 
lighter  sins,  and  the  Trespass-offering  lor  more  serious 
offences. 

The  True  Vieir. — That  the  Sin-offering  was  for  simple 
transgression  of  the  Law,  and  the  Trespass-offering  for 
trespass  or  injury  against  God  or  felk>\v-men,  for  which 
amends  must  be  made  together  with  one-fifth  in  addition. 
The  Trespass  oiferi ng  was  also  required  in  cleansing  a 
leper,  because  he  must  make  amends  for  his  lack  of  service 
to  God  during  his  defilement.  Also  required  of  a  Nazarite 
who  had  a  special  vow,  and  had  contracted  ceremonial 
uncleanness  in  the  meantime.  The  rifual  of  these  twcv 
offerings  was  determined  hy  their  character  and  design. 
The  animal  varied  according  to  the  theocratic  standing  of 
the  offerer,  in  the  Sin-offering.  For  the  sins  of  the  entire 
people,  or  of  the  High  Priest  as  the  representative  of  the 
people,  a  young  bullock  was  required.  For  an  ordinary 
ruler,  a  he-goat.  For  one  of  the  common  people,  a  she- 
goat  or  sheep.  For  the  poor,  two  doves  or  pigeons.  For 
extreme  poverty,  one-tenth  of  an  ephah  of  fiour.  The 
enormity  of  the  sin  was  aggravated  by  the  standing  of  the 
sinner.  This  gradation  is  peculiar  to  the  *S^/??-offering.  In 
the  Trespass -oWQvmg,  a  ram  was  required  in  every  case, 
because  the  damage  was  the  same,  irrespective  of  the 
wealth  of  the  offerer.  The  ^S'm-offering  was  for  the  whole 
people,  and  was  offered  at  the  annual  feasts^  to  atone  for 
the  unconscious  sins  of  the  whole  people  in  the  interval. 

No  Trespass-offering  was  required,  because  the  nature 
of  this  required  the  particular  sin  to  be  made  known. 
Only  a  single  animal  was  offered  in  the  Sin  and  Trespass- 
ofiering.  There  was  an  indefinite  number  in  the  Burnt 
and  Peace-offerings.  Because  in  the  Sin  and  Trespass- 
offerings  the  expiation  for  sin  was  the  pure  act  of  God's 
grace,  and  not  to  be  purchased  by  the  number  of  the 
offerings.  In  the  Burnt  and  Peace-ofterings,  which  rep- 
resented the  inward  devotion  of  the  heart,  and  therefore 
could  be  intensified,  an  indefinite  number  of  victims 
might  be  offered.  At  the  dedication  of  the  temple,  tens 
and  hundreds  of  thousands  were  offered.     The  sreat  idea 


63 

of  the  Trespass-oitering  is  satisfaction  for  sin,  reparation 
for  claniage  by  pecuniary  compensation.  In  the  tSin-offer- 
ing,  the  prominence  is  given  to  the  sprinkling  of  blood, 
and  the  great  idea  is  expiation  for  sin.  The  blood  was 
broughtto  the  altar  in  every  sacrifice;  but  in  the  others  it 
was  sprinkled  round  about  the  altar,  while  in  tlie  Sin- 
ofiering  a  greater  formality  was  required. 

(1.)  In  the  case  of  (he  Il/'fjh  Priest.  The  blood  was  taken 
by  the  Priest  on  his  finger,  and  smeared  on  the  horns  of 
the  altar;  these  were  the  vertices  or  culminating  points, 
the  idea  being  that  the  virtue  in  it  rose  to  its  maximum. 
The  rest  of  the  blood  was  poured  at  the  base  of  the  altar. 
See  Lev.  4 :  3-12. 

(2.)  In  the  case  of  the  sin  of  the  ir hole  people.  The  blood 
was  carried  into  the  Holy  Place  and  sprinkled  seven  times 
in  front  of  the  rail,  and  was  also  taken  on  the  finger  of  the 
Priest  and  put  on  the  horns  of  the  Golden  Altar  of  Incense, 
while  he  poured  the  rest  of  the  blood  at  the  base  of  the 
Altar  in  the  court.  Lev.  13  :  21.  On  the  great  Day  of 
Atonement,  the  High  Priest  took  the  blood  of  the  sin- 
offering  and  sprinkled  it  upon  the  mercy-seat  in  the  Holy 
of  Holies. 

In  the  case  of  the  Sin  and  Tres pass-offering,  the  fat  only 
was  to  burned  on  the  altar ;  the  iiesh  was  given  to  the 
Priests  to  be  eaten  in  the  court,  in  case  tlie  sacrifice  was 
for  a  layman  ;  but  if  for  the  priest  or  for  the  whole  peo- 
ple, it  was  to  be  burned  in  a  clean  place  without  the  camp. 
Lev.  6  :  25. 

Different  Explanations  of  this  rule. 

These  offerings  were  made  unholy  by  the  sin  imputed 
to  them;  therefore  the  iiesh  could  not  be  burned  with 
acceptance  on  God's  altar,  but  must  be  consumed  in  some 
otlier  way,  either  outside  the  camp  or  be  eaten  by  the 
priests.  This  sym])olized  tlie  annihilation  of  the  sin 
which  had  been  imputed  to  it.  If  eaten,  it  was  supposed 
to  be  absorbed  in  the  holiness  of  the  priests.  If  the 
priest  was  the  sinner,  or  the  people,  then  the  holiness  re- 
quired to  consume  the  sin  was  lacking.  Hence  the  flesh 
must  be  burned.  In  support  of  this,  those  who  hold  it 
quote  Lev.  10:  17.  They  inferred  that  the  eating  of  the 
Sin-offering  by  Aaron  and  his  sons  was  equal  to  consum- 
ing the  sin  of  the  people.      This  is  not  necessarily  the 


64 

meaning  of  the  passage.  That  this  view  is  not  correct 
appears  from  Lev.  16:  25  and  10:  17.  The  flesh  is  there 
called  ''most  holy,"  also  Lev.  6:  20-29.  It  was  eaten 
only  in  the  Holy  Place,  and  anything  it  touched  was  made 
holy  by  it.  It  must  be  washed  in  the  Holy  Place,  and  a 
brazen  pot  in  which  it  was  sodden  must  be  rinsed  and 
scoured,  and  an  earthen  vessel  was  to  be  broken,  because 
it  was  too  holy  for  any  other  use.  The  fat  was  burned 
on  the  Altar.  This  would  not  have  been  so,  if  there  were 
any  defilement  in  the  animal  ;  nor  would  the  priest  be 
allowed  to  eat  defilement.  The  sin  had  already  been 
atoned  for,  by  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  before  the  flesh 
was  to  be  eaten.  The  burning  of  it  outside  the  camp,  in 
a  clean  place  whither  the  ashes  had  been  carried,  was 
analogous  to  the  burning  of  what  was  left  from  the  Pass- 
over and  Peace-ofiering,  and  was  to  preserve  it  from  decay 
and  corruption.  The  priests  could  not  eat  the  sacrifice 
oflTered  for  themselves,  because  they  could  not  profit  by 
their  own  sins.  They  were  God's  servants,  and  therefore 
were  to  be  fed  from  His  table. 

n.  Burnt-offering. — Emphasized  oblation  and  con- 
secration. Its  characteristic  was  the  burning  of  the  whole 
eatable  portion  of  the  animal,  and  the  skin  given  to  the 
priest.  It  could  be  ottered  at  any  time,  and  was  the  most 
frequent  of  the  ofierings.  The  other  ofi'erings  were  for 
special  occasions.  There  was  a  regular  public  Burnt- 
offering  for  every  day,  consisting  of  a  lamb  every  morn- 
ing and  evening.  The  fire  was  never  allowed  to  go  out. 
On  the  Sabbath,  the  daily  Burnt  offering  was  doubled. 
On  the  first  of  the  month  there  was  a  larger  offer- 
ing; and  at  the  annual  feast,  larger  still.  It  was 
the  only  kind  of  offering  that  could  be  offered  alone. 
'No  act  ot  worship  was  acceptable  without  the 
consecration  which  the  burnt-offering  represented.  Any 
kind  of  dean  animals  might  be  offered.  It  must  be 
without  blemish  and  a  male^  except  in  the  case  of  Doves 
where  there  was  but  little  difference  in  the  size  of  the  two 
sexes,  (and  yet  the  masculine  suffix  is  used  in  the  case  of 
Doves.)  In  the  Sin-offering,  where  gradation  was  re- 
quired, this  was  made  in  part  by  distinction  of  gender. 
Males  were  considered  higher  than  females.  The  female 
was  not  allowed  in  the  Burnt- offering  at  all.     Some  say 


65 

that  the  male  represented  greater  strenuousness,  t^'C,  on 
the  part  of  the  otFerer,  to  God's  service.  But  diiterence 
in  size  is  the  most  phiusible  explanation. 

III.  The  Peace-offering— To  express  and  ratify  peace 
with  God.  Its  characteristic  feature  was  a  feast^  which 
signified  peace  and  communion  with  God.  When  this 
Sacrifice  is  mentioned  in  a  series,  it  is  the  highest  and 
last.    Three  kinds  are  recognized. 

1.  Thanksgiring  in  acknowledgment  of  some  benefit 
from  God,  or  for  God's  mercy  in  general. 

2.  Voirs  in  fulfillment  of  pledges  previously  given. 

3.  Free-irill  ofitering  of  the  inward,  spontaneous  im- 
pulse. 

Peace-ofiferings  were  presented  for  benefits  desired,  as 
well  as  for  benefits  received.  Judges  20  :  26  ;  21 :  4 ;  1 
Sam.  13:  9;  2  Sam.  24:  25. 

Any  sacrificial  animal,  male  or  female,  might  be  pre- 
sented, according  to  the  wish  of  the  ofl:erer.  It  could  be 
male  or  female.  Doves  and  pigeons  are  not  mentioned, 
because  this  sacrifice  was  not  urgent,  and  so  the  very  poor* 
did  not  need  to  oflfer  at  all.  Moreover,  doves  and  pigeons 
would  have  been  unsuitable  for  the  sacrificial  feast  which 
followed.  The  animal  must  be  without  blemish.  Only 
in  the  free-will  oflfering  one  "  superfluous  or  lacking  in  its 
parts"  might  be  presented.  It  was  a  spontaneous  gift, 
so  an  animal  of  less  value  would  be  accepted. 

The  disposition  of  the  flesh  was  peculiar  to  this  kind  of 
sacrifice.  The  richest  fat  was  burned  on  the  altar.  The 
breast  and  right  shoulder  or  hcmi  were  waved  or  heaved  and 
given  to  the  priests ;  the  ham  to  the  friends  who  minis- 
tered in  this  particular  sacrifice,  and  the  breast  to  the 
priests  in  general. 

There  was  no  particular  meaning  in  them,  as  that  the 
breast  =  "  affection,"  and  the  shoulder  =="  work."  They 
are  choice  parts.  These  are  called  technically  the  iccu'e 
breast  and  heave  shoulder^  because  of  the  consecration  by 
waving  and  heaving.  There  is  a  tradition  about  this 
ceremony.  The  waving  was  by  some  supposed  to  be  a 
horizontal  motion  toward  each  of  the  four  points  of  the 
compass,  first  to  right,  then  to  left.  Others  think  that  it 
was  waved  forward,  toward  the  sanctuary,  and  then  back- 
ward again.     This,  they  say,  showed  it  to  be  given  to 


66 

God  and  then  God  gave  it  to  the  priests.  The  heaving 
was  the  raising  of  it  up  to  heaven  and  lowering  it  again ; 
toward  heaven  to  dedicate  to  God,  and  toward"  earth, 
given  by  God  to  priests. 

The  rest  of  the  flesh  was  given  to  the  oiFerer,  who,  with 
his  family  and  friends  and  some  needy  Levites,  ate  it. 
This  symbolized  communion  with  God  and  his  people. 

1.  The  Spiritualistic  View.  That  the  animal  represented 
the  offerer  himself.  Part  was  given  to  God  on  the  altar, 
and  part  given  to  the  priests,  {i.  e.,  God's  people,)  and 
thus  the  offerer  was  brought  into  union  and  fellowship 
with  God  and  his  people.  The  objections  to  this  view 
are  : 

(1)  The  offerer  eats  a  symbol  of  himself.  He  was  not 
excluded  from  the  sacrificial  feast. 

(2)  The  priests  and  the  friends  form  two  separate  com- 
panies, but  according  to  this  they  should  be  one. 

2.  The  True  Vieio.  That  this  is  a  feast  in  which  God 
is  the  host,  and  the  offerer  and  friends  are  guests.  This 
•appears  :  (1.)  The  flesh  was  the  flesh  of  a  sacrifice  which 
belonged  wholly  to  the  Lord.  (2.)  Xot  only  that  which 
was  burned,  but  that  which  was  eaten,  is  called  the 
"  bread  of  God.''  Lev.  7  :  20-21 ;  21 :  22.  (3.)  It  was  to 
be  eaten  before  the  Lord  in  his  court.  (4.)  From  N.  T., 
1  Cor.  10  :  18-21,  we  learn  that  the  offerer  is  the  guest 
of  that  deity  of  whose  sacrifice  he  eats.  (5.)  Analogy  of 
the  Lord's  supper,  and  of  the  parables  of  our  Lord.  (6.) 
This  view  is  necessary  to  the  significance  of  the  emblems. 
This  feast  is  a  symbol  of  and  a.  pledge  of  friendship,  peace, 
and  communion  with  God.  It  is  upon  the  flesh  of  a  sacri- 
ficial animal,  and  is  an  inward  appropriation  of  the 
benefits  of  the  sacrifice.  The  guests  represented  the 
whole  body  of  God's  people.  It  was  impossible  for  them 
all  to  get  together  in  one  place  and  at  one  time,  (except 
in  such  a  case  as  the  dedication  of  the  temple,)  and  so  a 
selection  must  be  made.  And  the  family  and  friends 
composed  the  company  and  represented  the  entire  body 
of  God's  people.  So,  in  the  case  of  the  Passover,  each 
company  rejyresenied  the  entire  people  of  God.  So  also  in 
the  Lord's  supper.  What  remained  was  to  be  burned 
and  thus  preserved  from  contamination  and  corruption. 
There  was  a  distinction  between  the  thank-offering  and 


67 

the  vow  or  free-will-otfering.  The  ihcoik-oti:'ering  was  the 
holiest,  and  hence  corruption  was  more  strictly  guarded 
against.  No  part  of  it  was  to  be  left  until  the  next  daj.. 
Lev.  7 :  15. 

The  Voir  and  free-idll  offering  could  be  left  until  the 
second  day.    Lev.  7  :  16-21 ;  19  :  6. 

The  Bloodless  or  Vegetable  or  Meat- offering,  (Heb., 
MiNHAH.)  "Meat,"  in  our  English  version,  — "  food." 
The  meat-o^Qvmg  was  distinguished  from  the  c/nV?A;-offer- 
ing,  and  yet  it  often  included  all  vegetable  offerings.  The 
materials  were  the  three  products,  grain,  oil,  and  wine. 
Ps.  104 :  15.  Fruits  of  trees  and  garden  herbs  were  ex- 
cluded. 

Baelir  Ijnds  a  correspondence  between  these  materials 
and  those  of  the  animal-offerings,  viz.,  bread  =  flesh,  oil=^ 
fat,  wine= blood.  This  he  says  is  the  reason  why  meal 
is  sometimes  allowed.  Lev.  5  :  IL  This  is  imaginary, 
for  oil  was  forbidden  in  the  meal  when  offered  as  a  sin- 
offering;  and  wine  cannot  represent  blood,  which  was 
forbidden  to  be  drunk.  Grain  could  be  offered  (a)  as 
grain  or  grits,  (b)  as  four,  fine  flour,  (c)  as  bread  or  cakes. 
A  handful  of  flour  or  a  cake  was  burned  on  the  altar  as  a 
memorial  before  God.  (It  signified  the  same  as  the  flesh 
in  the  animal  sacrifice.  It  was  an  oblation  of  food,  and 
represented  the  consecration  of  labor  and  life  to  God.) 
The  rest  was  given  to  the  priests,  wh(»  ate  it  in  the  court. 
Lev.  6 :  16.  Thus  God's  servants  were  to  be  fed  at  his 
table.  If  presented  by  the  priest,  none  was  eaten,  (Lev. 
6 :  16)  because  they  were  not  to  profit  by  their  own  sins. 
Gil  was  not  a  separate  constituent,  but  an  adjunct,  (1) 
because  the  oil  was  not  used  separately,  but  mingled ;  (2) 
the  oil  is  co-ordinated  with  incense  (Lev.  2  :  15) ;  (3)  oil 
was  not  an  actual  article  of  food,  but  was  used  in  prepar- 
ing it.  It  is  spoken  of  in  connection  with  bread  and 
wine.  Hence,  it  represented  not  a  separate  gift,  or  that 
which  yields  the  light  of  knowledge,  but  here  as  else- 
where, it  represented  the  Holy  Spirit,  without  whom  the 
sacrifice  would  not  be  complete  or  acceptable. 

Salt  and  Incense. — Salt  was  used,  because  it  repre- 
sented preservation,  the  opposite  of  decay.  A  covenant 
of  salt  =  a  lasting  covenant.  Meat  which  endures.  In- 
cense was  an  accompaniment.     It  was  burued  on  the  ofler- 


68 

ing  but  not  mixed  with  it.  AH  the  , incense  was  burned. 
It  represented  j9rrt^e7%  which  must  hallow  every  oblation. 
Honey  and  Leaven  were  prohibited.  Leaven  leads  to  fer- 
mentation and  corruption,  hence  it  was  a  symbol  of  evil. 
1  Cor.  5:  6-8.  Honey  also  turns  to  sourness  and  cor- 
ruption. 

The  drink-offering  was  a  separate  oblation,  but  was 
invariably  added  to  the  meat-offering.  It  consisted  of 
-wine,  not  poured  at  the  base  of  the  altar,  but  upon  the 
altar.  The  drink  on  the  table.  Ex.  30 :  9.  We  know 
this  to  be  true  also  from  the  analogy  of  heathen  offerings. 
The  cegetable-o^Qvmg^  were  never  presented  alone^  but 
must  follow  a  burnt  or  peace-o^Qvmg.  The  only  instances 
to. the  contrary  are  the  sin-offering  of  meal  in  poverty, 
and  in  the  offering  of  jealousy.     Num.  5:15. 

Purification  of  the  Mosaic  Law. 

These  form  the  second  class  of  Sacred  actions.  They 
were  designed  to  symbolize  the  removal  of  the  defilement 
and  pollution  of  sin,  as  the  removal  of  guilt  was  represented 
by  the  sacrificial  expiation.  The  distinction  of  clean  and 
unclean  was  made  by  the  Levitical  Law.  The  design  of 
these  minute  regulations  was  not  to  promote  1.  Cleanliness 
and  decency  among  the  people;  because  (a)  in  that  case, 
everything  filthy  would  have  been  ceremonially  unclean. 
This  was  not  the  case.  The  number  of  objects  was 
limited,  (b)  The  idea  of  personal  purity  and  ceremonial 
cleanliness  are  distinct,  (c)  The  orientals  are  carefal  about 
the  latter  and  negligent  about  the  former,  (d)  The  reli- 
gious character  of  the  purifications  is  not  explained  by 
this  view. 

2.  The  design  was  not  Sanitary.,  i.  e.,  to  promote  the 
health  of  the  people,  (a)  This  view  entirely  overlooks  the 
religious  character  of  the  institutions.  The  Purifications 
belong  to  the  same  order  with  the  Sacrifices,  and  pertain 
to  a  like  end  ;  and  it  would  be  in  contradiction  to  the 
Mosaic  system  to  suppose  that  religion  was  only  a  cover 
to  some  secular  end.  (b)  This  view  will  not  account  for 
what  these  laws  contain  or  omit.  A  person  may  come  in 
contact  with  any  disease  except  leprosy  without  becoming 
defiled,  but  could  not  come  into  the  presence  of  a  dead 
body. 


69 

3.  Xor  was  there  anything  wrong  or  peculiarly  sinful 
in  those  things  which  were  called  unclean. 

(a)  There  was  nothing  morally  wrong  in  eating  one 
animal  and  not  another.  The  unclean  animals  had  no 
connection  with  the  kingdom  of  evil,  (b)  IS'or  was  there 
any  sin  involved  in  those  conditions  of  the  human  body 
which  were  considered  unclean.  E.  g.,  no  sin  was  con- 
nected with  the  natural  birth  of  children.  Barrenness 
was  even  regarded  as  a  curse  in  those  times.  So  the 
corpse  of  a  good  man  was  as  defiling  as  that  of  a  bad 
man.  (c)  Delilement  might  arise  from  actions  which 
were  actual  duties;  e.  g.^  the  burial  of  a  relative,  and  cer- 
tain other  services  which  the  ritual  prescribed,  and  which 
could  not  be  neglected. 

The  Distinction  in  Animals  had  a  two-fold  purpose. 

1.  It  carried  a  distinction  of  right  and  wrong,  duty  and 
transgression,  into  the  ordinar}-  matters  of  daily  life. 

2.  These  laws  were  practically  a  wall  of  separation 
between  Israel  and  the  Gentiles,  with  whom  (Acts  10  :  28) 
they  could  not  so  much  as  eat.  This  distinction  in  ani- 
mals had  relation  only,  first,  to  food,  and,  secondly,  to  the 
loorship  of  God.  Clean  animals  only  could  be  eaten  or 
sacrificed.  Other  animals  could  be  used  for  any  other 
purpose.  The  criteria  of  distinction  were  drawn  partly 
from  the  organs  of  motion,  and  partly  from  food.  In 
heasfs,  both  were  regarded.  Those  were  clean  which  had 
the  parted  hoof  and  chewed  the  cud.  In  Jish,  those  which 
had  fins  and  scales  were  clean.  This  referred  only  to  the 
organs  of  motion.  In  birds,  food  was  the  characteristic. 
Birds  of  prey  were  unclean.  The  distinction  between 
clean  and  unclean  was  not  without  foundation  in  the 
nature  of  things.  The  rules  were  simple  and  clear,  and 
embraced  the  chief,  if  not  all,  of  the  animals  used  for 
food.  One  class  represented  the  idea  of  pure  and  clean, 
the  other  that  of  unclean.  It  has  been  supposed  that  it 
was  desio'ned  to  sus^crest  that  those  who  belonged  to  God's 
kingdom  were  distinguished  by  their  u'alk  and  food. 
This  may  be  stretching  the  matter  too  far.  This  distinc- 
tion is  only  a  reflection  of  man's  state  of  defilement  in  the 
presence  of  God.  When  men  come  near  to  God,  or  He 
to  them,  they  must  be  cleansed  from  impurity.  Ex.  19: 
10-14 ;  Lev.  8  :  6  ;  Ex.  30 :  20  ;  Num.  8  :  7.  N^one  but  the 
pure  could  come  near  the  holy  God. 


But  besides  these  rare  occasions,  and  the  select  few- 
engaged  in  sacred  functions,  the  idea  of  clean  and  un- 
clean was  to  receive  a  symbolical  representation  wdiich 
should  carry  it  into  the  affairs  of  daily  life.  The  delile- 
ment  was  not  that  arising  from  voluntary  sin,  but  from 
the  involuntary  and  hereditary  taint  of  sin  in  all  men. 
This  was  denoted  by  selecting  the  extremes  of  life — birth 
and  death.  Birth  is  the  source  of  human  corruption,  and 
death  the  iinal  result  of  it.  Each  of  these  had  its  own 
specific  curse  attached  to  it  in  the  fall  of  our  lirst  parents. 
These  are  the  two  poles  about  w^hich  ceremonial  defile- 
ment centred,  creating  two  classes  of  impurity.  First. 
Everything  relating  to  birth  was  defiled  ;  everything  sex- 
ual, w^hether  natural  or  diseased,  though  not  necessarily 
involving  sin.  See  Lev.,  Chapters  12  and  15.  The  series 
culminated  in  birth.  The  measure  and  gradation  of  de- 
filement was  indicated  by  three  particulars : 

(1.)  The  length  of  time  during  w^hich  the  uncleanness 
continued. 

(2.)  The  extent  to  which  this  defilement  could  be  com- 
municated. 

(3.)  The  character  of  the  ritual  necessary  to  its  removal. 
All  this  was  very  complicated. 

We  will  consider  them  in  order. 

(1)  The  Duration  was  various.  It  might  be  till  evening 
only;  in  grosser  cases  for  a  week,  measured  from  the 
beginning  of  the  uncleanness,  or  the  cessation  of  its  cause; 
or  for  40  days  or  twice  40.  Fort\^  was  a  sacred  number. 
The  four  sides  of  a  square,  (the  symbol  of  regularity) 
multiplied  by  10,  (the  symbol  of  completeness)=40.  Israel 
was  in  the  wilderness  40  years.  The  period  of  defilement 
at  the  birth  of  a  male  child  was  40  days  ;  of  a  female,  80 
days.  These  longer  periods  w-ere  subdivided  into  two 
parts, — the  first  period  consisting  of  7  or  14  days,  and  the 
second  of  33  or  66  days.  The  grade  of  defilement  was 
greater  during  the  first  7  or  14  days. 

(2)  The  liability  of  the  defilement  to  be  communicated 
varied.  The  lighter  kind  was  not  transmissible.  The 
more  serious  affected  all  who  came  in  contact  with  the 
one  so  defiled.  The  most  serious  kind  defiled  not  only 
the  clothes,  bed,  etc.,  but  every  thing  that  was  touched  or 
spit  upon. 


71 

(3)  The  mode  of  effecting  purification  varied  also,  (a) 
By  simple  washing  of  the  person  and  clothes  in  water  ;  or 
(b)  in  addition,  he  must  bring  two  doves  or  young  pigeons 
to  the  Sanctuary,  one  for  the  burnt  ottering  and  the 
other  for  the  sin-offering :  or  (c)  a  lamb  of  the  iirst  year 
for  the  burnt-offerins^  and  a  turtle-dove  for  the  sin-offerino^. 

The  Second  Source  of  Ceremonial  Defilement  was 
Death; — either  contact  with  a  dead  body,  or  leprosy, 
which  was  a  sort  of  living  death.  Num.  12:  12.  The 
eating  of  a  clean  animal  which  died  of  itself  or  was  torn 
by  wild  beasts,  was  a  source  of  defilement.  Ex.  22:  31; 
Lev.  11:  39;  17  :  15.  Also  to  touch  the  dead  carcass  of 
an  unclean  beast.  Lev.  11 :  24-28.  A  human  corpse  was 
still  more  defiling.  This  appears  (a)  from  the  duration  of 
the  uncleanness  which  was  for  7  days ;  (b)  in  its  com- 
municability.  Num.  19:  14;  (c)  in  the  ritual  for  cleans- 
ing. The  washing  with  water  was  not  enough  here,  not 
-even  pure  running  water,  but  ashes  must  be  mingled  with 
it,  and  these  ashes  must  be  prepared  in  a  peculiar  and 
significant  way.  The  ashes  were  those  ot  a  sin-offering, 
prepared  with  peculiar  rites  for  this  special  purpose. 
Hence  this  exhibits  sin,  not  only  as  defilement  to  be 
washed  away,  and  shows  the  necessity  of  a  sacrificial 
atonement,  but  also  shows  that  this  atonement  is  an  indis- 
pensable prerequisite  to  the  cleansing.  The  customary 
sin-offering  was  a  young  bullock.  Lev.  4  :  14.  But  this 
sin-offering  was  a  red  heifer.  In  ordinary  sin-ofierings, 
the  color  was  indifferent.  The  red  was  a  S3'mbol  of  life 
and  vigor, — being  the  color  of  blood.  "  To  prepare  an 
antidote  to  death,"  refers  to  the  means  of  purification 
from  contact  with  a  corpse.  The  heifer  must  be  one  upon 
which  a  yoke  had  never  rested  to  impair  its  vigor.  This 
heifer,  unlike  the  ordinary  sin-offering,  was  not  to  be 
taken  to  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  and  there  slain  ;  but  it 
must  be  brought  without  the  camp  and  slain  there  by  the 
-eldest  son  of  the  High  Priest  and  the  blood  sprinkled  7 
times  toward  the  Sanctuary.  It  was  then  burned  whole 
and  the  ashes  gathered  by  a  clean  man  and  put  in  a  clean 
place  outside  the  camp,  to  be  used  in  purifying.  Those 
officiating  in  this  service  were  all  rendered  unclean  and 
were  required  to  wash  their  clothing,  etc.  This  exclusion 
from  the  sanctuary  and  all  the  defilement  resulting  from 


72 

the  ceremony  brought  the  whole  service  into  connection 
with  the  idea  of  defilement  and  pollution,  and  was  per- 
formed in  relation  to  it.  Thus  the  ceremony  was  defiling, 
though  a  duty.  So  the  lesson  is  taught : — we  may  con- 
tract defilement  in  holy  services.  While  the  heifer  was 
burning,  the  priest  cast  into  the  flames  cedar  wood,  hyssop, 
and  scarlet.  Cedar  was  incorruptible ;  hyssop  was  used  in 
cleansing;  and  scarlet  was  the  color  of  blood,  suggesting 
life.  These  ashes,  miugled  with  running  water,  were 
sprinkled  upon  the  unclean  person  from  a  bunch  of  hyssop, 
on  the  third  and  seventh  days,  and  after  bathing  and 
washing  his  clothes,  he  shall  be  clean  at  evening.  Num. 
19 :  19.  And  the  persons  who  ofiiciated,  and  any  who 
touched  the  water,  were  rendered  unclean. 

Leprosy  was  but  a  living  death.  Very  minute  specifica- 
tions are  given,  (Num.  14,)  by  which  the  priests  could 
detect  it.  Read  Lev.  13  and  14  chapters,  for  the  mode  of 
purification.  The  rites  of  cleansing  consisted  of  two  parts. 
The  first  efl^ected  the  restoratien  to  m^Y  rights;  the  second 
to  the  communion  of  the  Sanctuary.  In  order  to  the  first, 
two  living  birds  were  taken,  one  as  a  sacrifice  for  the 
ofi:erer,  the  other  as  a  symbol  of  himself.  The  former 
was 'killed  over  running  water,  and  the  living  bird  was 
then  dipped  in  the  mixture  of  blood  and  water  and  the 
leper  sprinkled  7  times  with  it.  The  leper  was  then 
pronounced  clean  and  the  bird  let  loose.  After  washing, 
bathing  and  shaving,  and  a  probation  of  7  days,  he  was 
admitted  to  full  civH  rights.  See  Lev.  14 :  8,  9.  His 
restoration  to  the  privileges  of  the  Sanctuary  was  efl:ected 
on  the  following  day.  A  Tresimss,  Sin,  Burnt  and  Meat- 
oftering  were  to  be  made  ;  a  tresiMss-oJXmuif  in  compensa- 
tion for  lack  of  service.  Blood  and  oil  were  taken.  Lev. 
14  :  12-19.  This  signified  the  application  of  the  benefits 
of  the  sacrifice  to  the  organs  of  hearing,  doing,  and  run- 
ning to  obey  God's  commands.  Oil  signified  the  Holy 
Spirit.  The  sin-ofiering  (Lev.  14:  19)  was  added  to  the 
satisfaction  of  the  trespass-ofi:*ering,  as  an  atonement  for 
the  sin  which  the  leprosy  represented.  Restoration  being 
thus  effected,  the  burnt  and  meat-offerings  signified  con- 
secration of  self  and  life.  Read  Lev.,  chapters  13  and  14, 
and  Num.  19;  also,  in  Smith's  Dictionary,  the  article  on 
Purification. 


73 
Sacred  Persons 

Were  those  who  were  admitted  to  Sacred  Places  and 
entrusted  with  the  performance  of  Sacred  Rites.  Man 
had  forfeited  the  right  of  access  to  God,  and  no  act  of 
service  rendered  by  him  was  acceptable.  None  could 
approach  God,  save  those  whom  He  chose.  Israel  was 
God's  peculiar  people — a  holy  nation.  They  were  God's 
people  in  a  special  sense,  and  had  the  privilege  of  access 
to  Him  in  a  special  way.  In  the  encampment  in  the 
wilderness,  the  Tabernacle  was  placed  in  the  centre  of  the 
encampment.  God  thus  dwelt  in  the  midst  of  his  people. 
They  also  had  access  to  the  court  of  his  Tabernacle. 
Within  the  square  formed  by  the  encampment  of  the 
tribes  around  the  Tabernacle,  was  another  square  in  which 
dwelt  the  Sacerdotal  Tribe  of  Lei'i  and  the  Priests.  The 
Levite^  were  chosen  for  the  service  of  the  Sanctuary. 
They  belonged  to  it,  not  only  as  worshippers,  but  were 
permanently  occupied  there.  They  were  selected  for  the 
service  of  God,  in  lieu  of  all  the  first-born  of  Israel,  who 
were  to  be  consecrated  to  God  in  acknowledgment  that 
they  had  received  all  things  from  him,  and  to  com- 
memorate the  slaying  of  the  first-born  in  Egypt.  They 
were  located  next  to  the  Tabernacle  on  two  sides  and  in 
the  rear.  They  were  charged  with  the  transportation  of 
the  Tabernacle  and  the  keeping  of  the  sacred  vessels. 
Moses,  Aaron,  and  his  sons,  encamped  in  front  of  the 
Tabernacle.  They  were  alloAved  a  still  nearer  .approach 
to  God.  The  priests  were  admitted  into  the  Holy  Place, 
and  the  High  Priest  once  a  year  entered  the  Hoh^  of 
Holies.  These  was,  then,  a  gradation  in  the  sanctity  of 
the  people,  corresponding  to  the  apartments  themselves. 
The  Priesthood  was  not  a  caste,  but  was  chosen  "from 
among  the  people  "  by  God  and  invested  with  the  office 
which  originally  belonged  to  all  the  people.  God  promised 
to  make  them  all  kings  and  priests.  Ex.  19  :  6.  This  is 
the  destiny  of  God's  people.  They  were  not  at  first  ready 
for  the  full  realization  ot  this  promise.  They  showed,  by 
defalcation  and  disorders,  that  they  could  not  yet  rule 
themselves.  This  right  to  reign  was  therefore  left  in 
abeyance  for  a  time.  The  kingly  authority  was  temporarily 
committed  to  one  of  their  number,  (Deut.  17:  15  ;)  to  one 


74 

who  had  no  claim  to  it,  in  anticipation  of  the  full  realiza- 
tion of  the  promise.  This  is  so  also  in  the  Priesthood. 
The  Priest  is  one  who  enjoys  a  degree  of  intercourse  with 
God  which  is  denied  to  others.  He  comes  nearer  to  God. 
Heb.  5 :  1.  The  characteristic  expression  is  that  they 
come  near  to  God,  and  bring  near  the  appointed  offerings. 
Israel  was  a  nation  of  Priests,  but  was  not  yet  ripe  for  the 
office.  They  showed  this  at  Mount  Sinai.  They  trembled 
at  the  presence  of  God  and  entreated  Him  not  to  come 
near  them,  but  speak  through  Moses.  This  was  a  con- 
fession of  their  unfitness  to  approach  God,  but  the  Priestly 
office  was  not  to  be  abandoned ;  it  was  put  into  the  hands 
of  a  few  as  representatives,  until  the  time  when  all  should 
be  priests. 

The  Levites  had  no  inheritance.  The  Lord  was  their 
inheritance.  Their  labor  was  given  exclusively  to  Him. 
]^o  other  labor  v/as  allowed  them.  The  Lord  gate  them 
their  support  from  the  Sanctuary.  Forty-eight  cities, 
four  in  each  tribe,  with  their  suburbs,  were  assigned  them 
in  the  territory  of  the  several  tribes.  Six  of  them  were 
Oxies  of  Refuge.  The  cities  were  counted  as  belonging  to 
the  tribes  in  which  they  were  situated.  The  Levites  were 
thus  distributed  among  the  people.  These  six  Cities  of 
Refuge — three  on  each  side  of  the  Jordan— were  sanc- 
tuaries or  asylums  not  for  criminals  but  to  protect  the 
unintentional  manslayer.  1  Kings,  2 :  26.  As  the  altar 
was  the  place  of  refuge,  so  were  these  cities.  The  man- 
slayer  was  to  remain  there  till  the  death  of  the  High 
Priest,  ^um.  35:  25;  Josh.  20:  6.  There  are  various 
explanations  of  this. 

1.  Some  think  that  the  death  of  the  High  Priest  was  so 
great  a  public  calamity,  that  all  private  feelings  of  grief 
and  revenge  should  be  obliterated.  2.  Others  think  that 
the  Cities  "of  Refuge  were  under  the  special  control  of  the 
High  Priest,  and  his  control  being  ended  at  his  death, 
they  became  free.  3.  The  true  view  is,  that  the  High 
Priest  being  the  representative  of  the  whole  people,  his 
death  had  a  peculiar  expiatory  force,  and  set  the  man  free 
from  his  disabilities.     This  was  typical  of  Christ. 

The  Support  of  the  Levites.— l^wm.  18  :  21-32.  There 
was  no  tribute  paid  by  the  people  directly  to  the  Levites, 
but  one-tenth  was  given  to  God.     Ten  was  the  complete 


75 

number  of  the  digits,  and  hence  represented  the  total 
amount  of  their  possessions.  One  part  was  given  to  God 
in  acknowledgment  that  the  whole  came  from  Him.  Gen. 
28  :  22.  This  tithe  was  given  to  the  Levites,  and  they  in 
turn  gave  one-tenth  of  what  they  received  to  the  Lord,  and 
this  was  bestowed  upon  the  priests.  Lev.  23 :  9.  The 
first  fruits  of  the  harvest  w^ere  presented  a  wave  ottering  to 
the  Lord  and  given  to  the  priests ;  also  the  firstlings  of 
cattle;  also  the  first-born  of  men  and  of  unclean  beasts  vvere 
to  be  redeemed  and  the  sum  obtained  given  to  the  priests. 
This  furnished  ample  support  for  the  Levites.  They  had 
no  landed  estates.  They  were  dependent  upon  the 
rigorous  observance  of  the  Law  by  the  people.  The 
Levites  were  to  attend  to  the  service  of  the  Sanctuary 
from  the  age  of  25  or  30,  to  50 — in  the  prime  of  life. 
The  Priests  must  be  without  blemish  in  their  persons. 
They  might  eat  of  the  sacred  things,  but  could  not  offer 
at  the  altar,  unless  free  from  impurity. 

Dress.  — The  ordinary  dress  of  the  priests  consisted  of 
Jine  white  linen  ;  namely,  the  mitre,  robe,  cloak,  &c.  Ex. 
28.  They  wore  a  cap,  breeches,  and  a  cloak  reaching 
from  the  neck  to  the  feet.  These  represented  purity  and 
hohness.  This  appears:  (1.)  Thev  were  called  "holy 
garments."  Ex.  28  :  4.  (2.)  In  Rev.  19  :  8,  13,  14,  the 
same  dress  is  repeatedly  spoken  of  as  worn  by  angels; 
Mark  16:5.  Also  worn  bv  "  the  ancient  of  davs."  Dan. 
7:  9;  10:  5;  Ezra  9:  3. 

The  Girdle  was  made  of  fine  linen  ornamented  with 
blue,  purple  and  scarlet.  The  High  Priest's  dress  was 
distinguished  by  its  elegance  and  costliness.  He  wore 
the  same  style  ot  dress  as  the  ordinary  priest,  but  over  it 
he  w^ore  a  robe  of  blue  woven  in  one  piece.  It  was  thus 
seamless,  like  the  robe  of  our  Saviour,  signifying  com- 
pleteness or  perfection.  Blue  is  the  color  of  the  heavens, 
indicating  the  celestial  character  of  the  wearer. 

The  Ephod  was  in  two  pieces,  back  and  front,  joined  by 
clasps  on  the  shoulders.  The  clasps  were  made  of  onyx, 
on  which  were  graven  the  names  of  the  tribes.  It  was 
made  of  fine  linen,  ornamented  with  gold,  blue,  purple 
and  scarlet.  These  were  the  colors  of  a  gorgeous  sky  and 
of  the  inner  coverings  of  the  Tabernacle.  They  denoted 
the  divine  or  heavenly  functions  of  the  w^earer. 


76 

The  Breastplate  was  over  the  Ephod — was  made  of  linen 
in  a  square  piece,  and  was  adorned  with  gold,  blue,  purple 
and' scarlet.  In  it  were  twelve  precious  stones  in  four 
rows ;  on  each  stone  was  the  name  of  a  tribe.  The  material 
of  the  Breastplate  was  folded  so  as  to  make  a  pouch,  to 
contain  the  Urini  and  Thummim,  which  signified  respec- 
tively light  and  7J>^r/ec^zo?7.  These  terms  are  nowhere 
explained.  The  Breastplate  was  attached  to  the  Ephod 
by  chains  and  rings  and  blue  cord.  Ex.  28  :  28.  The 
High  Priest  thus  bore  the  names  of  the  tribes  conspicu- 
ously^ on  his  person,  when  he  approached  the  Lord, 
signifying  that  he  appeared  as  the  representative  of  the 
people.  The  stones  were  all  precious  but  different,  signify- 
ing that  God's  people  have  their  distinctive  peculiarities. 

The  Urim  and  Tliuyiimim  were  worn  when  the  High 
Priest  approached  God  to  ask  counsel, — signifying  the 
divine  infallibility,  etc. 

The  Mitre  was  of  linen,  like  that  of  the  ordinary  priests 
but  differed  in  form — probably  being  higher — and  had  a 
golden  plate  on  the  forehead,  bearing  the  inscription — 
"Holiness  to  the  Lord."  ]^o  mention  is  made  of  a 
covering  for  the  feet,  whence  it  appears  that  they  went 
unshod,  as,  e.  g.,  Moses  on  Mt.  Sinai,  and  Joshua  in  the 
presence  of  the  captain  of  the  Lord's  hosts.  Shoes  were 
to  protect  the  feet  from  defilement.  Those  who  were  in 
the  Tabernacle  were  on  hoh^  ground,  where  nothing  was 
needed  for  the  feet.  The  idea  is  that  purity  was  required 
of  those  who  came  near  to  God. 

The  sacredness  attached  to  the  Priests  and  Levites  was 
conveyed  to  them  by  the  rites  of  consecration.  Israel  was 
originally  constituted  the  people  of  God  by  a  solemn 
service.  It  was  after  the  proclamation  of  the  Law  from 
Sinai,  Ex.  Chapters  20  and  23.  The  people  promised 
obedience.  It  was  before  the  Tabernacle  was  made  or 
any  ordinance  of  worship  established.  To  conclude  this 
covenant,  an  Altar  was  erected  as  a  point  of  meeting, 
around  which  were  12  pillars.  So  the  place  where  God 
revealed  himself  was  in  the  midst  of  the  people.  Moses 
who  acted  as  Priest,  took  the  blood,  and  sprinkled  half  on 
the  Altar,  and  half  on  the  people.  This  was  done  after 
the  reading  of  the  law,  and  the  people  had  promised 
obedience.     There  was  no  sin-oft'ering  on  this  occasion, 


77 

because  the  law  of  the  sin-oftering  was  not  yet  promul- 
gated. The  Patriarchal  sacrilice  was  still  in  use.  The 
burnt-otfering,  which  was  the  primitive  form,  stands  here 
as  sufficient  for  expiation.  The  sprinkling  of  blood  was 
designed  to  express  expiation  for  sin.  The  peculiarity 
of  this  sacrifice  was  that  one-half  of  the  blood  was  placed 
on  the  altar,  signifying  God's  acceptance  of  his  part  of  his 
covenant;  and  one-half  on  the  people,  denoting  the 
application  of  its  merits  to  those  for  whom  it  was  shed. 
Some  have  thought  that  an  additional  reason  was,  that  it 
was  a  ratification  of  a  covenant,  and  the  blood  was  divided 
between  the  two  contracting  parties,  as  was  sometimes 
customar}^  It  indicated  that  both  would  be  united  in  life 
and  purpose  henceforth.  The  slaying  of  the  victim  denoted 
the  judgment  which  would  follow  the  breakers  of  the 
covenant.  After  this  was  the  ISacrificial  Meal.  The  peo- 
ple were  represented  by  Moses,  Aaron  and  his  sons,  and 
the  70  elders.  Seveniii  was  a  symbolical  number.  It  was 
the  product  of  7  and  10 — the  latter  denoting  complete- 
ness. It  was  also  a  historical  number,  being  the  number 
of  Jacob's  descendants,  when  he  went  down  to  Egypt. 
Gen.  46 :  27.  It  was  also  the  number  of  Noah's  descend- 
ants. Gen.  10.  The  number  represented  a  world-wide 
function  and  destiny.  These  representatives  of  the  peo- 
ple went  up  and  saw  God  in  Mt.  Sinai,  and  ate  and  drank 
before  him.  The  people  were  then  brought  into  com- 
munion with  God,  and  became  his  peculiar  people.  This 
relation  was  to  be  permanently  maintained  and  expressed 
by  the  service  of  the  Sanctuary. 

The  Consecration  of  the  Priests. — Lev.  8.  Effected  by 
two  series  of  equivalent  acts  of  three  each.  ThQ  first  series 
was  symbolical,  and  the  second,  sacrificial.     Ex.  29. 

TliQ  first  series  consisted  of  (1)  Washing,  wdiich  denoted 
preliminary  cleansing ;  (2)  Clothing,  which  denoted  inves- 
titure with  the  priestly  office  ;  (3)  Anointing,  which  denoted 
the  imparting  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

The  second  series  consisted  of  (1)  /Sm-offering,  which 
purged  from  sin,  and  corresponded  to  the  washing ;  (2) 
i^«/'/^^offering,  which  denoted  consecration  to  sacred 
office,  and  corresponded  to  the  clothing ;  (3)  Feace-o^QY- 
ing,  which  sealed  communion  with  God,  and  corresponded 
to  the  anointino:. 


78 

Moses  officiated  in  the  sacrifices  because  there  were  no 
Priests  yet ;  for  Aaron  and  his  sons  were  not  properly 
priests  until  the  service  was  over.  Blood  was  put  on  the 
tip  of  the  ear,  right  thumb,  and  right  great  toe,  to  make 
atonement  for  guilt  and  purify  these  organs  for  God's 
service.  Their  persons  and  dress  were  also  sprinkled 
with  blood  and  oil.  These  services  were  repeated  for 
seven  days,  and  on  the  eighth  day  began  their  sacred  func- 
tions. During  those  first  seven  days,  they  were  not  to 
leave  the  court  of  the  Tabernacle.  These  services  were 
to  be  repeated  whenever  a  new  High  Priest  was  to  be 
consecrated. 

The  Consecration  of  the  Levites  is  described  in  Numbers 
8 :  5-22.  This  took  place  when  they  were  leaving  Mt. 
Sinai,  because  their  part  of  the  services  was  to  transport 
the  Tabernacle,  and  there  was  thus  a  necessity  for  them. 
The  rites  of  consecration  were  inferior  in  solemnity  to 
the  consecration  of  the  priests.  Moses  was  directed  to 
cleanse  the  Levites^  but  to  sanctify  the  Priests.  There  were 
two  series  of  acts  and  two  in  each. 

The  first  series,  symbolical  as  before,  consisted  of  (1) 
Washing  and  Cleansing ;  (2)  Consecration  by  Waving. 

The  second  series  was  sacrificial.  (1)  Sin-ofiering ;  (2) 
Burnt-oiFering.  In  the  cleansing  they  were  sprinkled 
with  the  water  of  purifying.  Their  hair  was  shaven  and 
clothes  washed.  Their  clothes  were  renewed  and  cleansed^ 
because  they  were  to  enter  upon  a  new  function.  They 
had  no  official  dress,  since  they  only  attended  the  priests, 
and  were  not  really  invested  with  office.  They  were  sub- 
stitutes for  the  first-born  of  all  the  tribes.  The  children 
of  Israel  laid  their  hands  on  the  Levites,  and  the  obliga- 
tion of  service  was  thereby  transferred  to  them.  Then 
the  Levites  were  waved  toward  the  Tabernacle  and  to- 
ward the  Priests,  denoting  that  they  were  given  to  the 
latter  to  perform  the  service  of  the  sactuary.  The  sac- 
rificial acts  were  (1)  Sin-ofiering,  which  denoted  purga- 
tion of  sin,  and  (2)  ^^/?^?2^ofFering,  which  denoted  conse- 
cration. They  were  then  prepared  for  the  service  of  the 
Tabernacle,  to  which  they  were  set  apart. 


79 
Sacred  Times. 

The  most  general  term  is  Moadhim,  set  times,  because 
they  returned  at  stated  periods.  The  general  idea  is  that 
of  certain  portions  of  time  withdrawn  from  their  ordinary 
occupations,  and  devoted  to  God;  yet  not  as  sl  pai/ment, 
but  as  a  tribute,  and  an  acknowledgment  that  all  their 
time  belonged  to  God  and  His  service. 

These  special  duties  were  (a)  Negative,  i,  e.,  abstinence 
from  ordinary  secular  labor;  (b)  Positice,  i.  e.,  special  acts 
of  worship,  both  ceremonial  and  spiritual,  as  the  multi- 
plication of  sacrifices  and  holy  convocations,  prayer  and 
religious  devotions. 

The  Sacred  Seasons  instituted  by  Moses,  were  of  three 
kinds,  contemplating  God  under  three  aspects,  as  1.  Cre- 
ator ;  2.   Preserver  ;  3.  Sanctifier. 

I.  As  Creator.  A  series  of  Sabbaths,  or  Sabbatical  Series, 
based  on  the  w^eekly  Sabbath,  being  the  same  idea  ex- 
tended. The  Sabbath  had  existed  from  the  beginning  of 
the  world,  just  as  the  sacrifice  had  from  the  Fall.  Both 
these  primitive  institutions  were  incorporated  and  ex- 
panded in  the  Mosaic  Ritual.  That  the  Sabbath  was  so 
instituted  at  the  beginning  of  the  world  appears — 

(1)  From  Gen.  2  :  3.  This  could  not  have  been  inserted 
in  the  account  by  way  of  anticipation  of  sl  future  Sabbath, 
because  God's  blessing  the  seventh  day  could  no  more  be 
postponed  than  His  blessing  the  other  days  of  creation. 

(2)  From  the  actual  allusions  before  Sinai,  to  ijeriods 
of  seven  days,  and  the  sac  redness  of  the  numhe^seven. 
There  w^ere  seven  clean  animals  in  the  Ark ;  and  Xoah 
waited  seven  days  at  difi:erent  times.  It  was  incorporated 
in  the  language  : — the  verb  to  sivear,  in  Hebrew,  is  derived 
from  the  word  seven. 

(3)  These  periods  of  seven  days,  and  the  sacredness  of 
the  number  seven,  can  be  traced  to  other  nations  who  did 
not  borrow  from  the  Jews. 

(4)  The  Sabbath  was  observed  before  Sinai  by  the 
children  of  Israel.     Ex.  16  :  22  Manna. 

(5)  In  the  Fourth  Commandment  the  w^ord  remember 
occurs. 

The  Sabbatical  Series  was  formed  by  applying  the  num- 
ber seven  to  every  denomination  of  time.     The  seventh 


80 

day  was  the  Sabbath  ; — a  day  of  rest  for  man  and  beast. 
The  seventh  year  was  a  year  of  rest  for  the  land^  which 
was  to  remain  uncultivated  that  year.  The  Fiftieth  year, 
or  the  year  following  the  Seventh  Sabbatical  year  was  the 
Year  of  Jubilee,  when  took  place  the  restoration  of  property, 
reparation  for  injuries,  etc.  The  seventh  r)ionth  was  in  a 
certain  sense  sacred.  Its  first  day  was  to  be  kept  as  a 
Sabbath  by  abstaining  from  labor,  and  there  were  a  great 
number  of  festivals  in  this  month.  These  were  all  in- 
tended to  be  remembrances  of  God,  and  a  testimony  to 
Him  Avho  Himself  rested  on  the  seventh  day  of  Creation. 
The  refusing  to  keep  the  Sabbath  was  a  denial  of  the 
Creator,  and  hence  the  Sabbath  was  spoken  of  as  a  sign 
of  the  covenant  of  God  with  Israel.  It  represented  the 
covenant  on  the  side  of  Nature,  as  circumcision  did  on  the 
side  of  Grace.  These  various  Sabbaths  were  periods 
of  rest  from  worldly  labor  in  commemoration  of  God's 
rest.  They  were  designed  further  to  remind  the  Israel- 
ites of  the  rest  that  God  had  given  them  from  the  bondage 
of  Egypt.  It  restored  man's  strength,  and  was  also  a  tran- 
sient restoration  of  man's  primitive  condition  before  the 
curse  of  labor  had  been  pronounced  upon  him,  and  further- 
more was  a  type  of  the  future  rest  from  toil. 

II.  Those  which  celebrate  God  as  Preserver,  in  two 
respects,  viz.,  Historical  and  Agricultural.  These  feasts 
numbered  three,  and  were 

1.  The  Passover,  commemorating  their  deliverance  from 
Egypt  and  the  slaying  of  the  first-born.  It  was  at  the 
beginning  of  the  harvest.  It  was  on  the  fifteenth  day  of 
the  first  month,  (/'.  e.,  the  day  following  the  fourteenth 
day,)  and  lasted  for  seven  days. 

2.  The  Feast  of  Weeks  or  Pentecost,  occurring  on  the 
fiftieth  day  after  the  Passover,  lasting  one  day  only.  This 
feast  marked  the  end  of  the  harvest.  The  Feast  of  Weeks, 
according  to  tradition,  commemorated  the  giving  of  the 
Law. 

3.  The  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  on  the  fifteenth  day  of  the 
seventh  month,  and  lasted  seven  days.  It  commemorated 
the  dwelling  in  tents  in  the  vvdlderness.  It  also  marked 
the  end  of  the  vintage,  or  the  ingathering  of  fruits. 

The  feasts  of  the  Passover  and  Tabernacles  began  at 
full  moon.    After  the  feast  of  Tabernacles  was  the  day  of 


81 

the  Solemn  Assembly,  a  general  and  formal  conclusion 
of  all  the  festivals  of  the  3'ear. 

III.  Those  in  which  God  is  regarded  as  a  Sanciijier, 
This  class  contained  one  item,  the  great  Day  of  Atone- 
ment. It  was  a  general  expiation  for  the  sins  of  the  year. 
It  occurred  on  the  tenth  day  of  the  seventh  month. 

There  were  seven  days  in  the  jqhv  which  were  festive 
Sabbaths,  besides  the  weekly  Sabbaths.  These  were  the 
first  and  seventh  days  of  the  Passover,  the  day  of  the  Feast 
of  Weeks,  and  four  days  in  the  sacred  (z.  e.,  the  seventh) 
month.  .These  last  were  the  first,  the  tenth  (/.  e.,  day  of 
atonement,)  the  fifteenth  {i.  t.,  the  first  day  of  the  Feast 
of  Tabernacles,)  and  the  twenty-second  (/.  e.,the  day  after 
the  Feast  of  Tabernacles.)  All  these  were  to  be  observed 
as  Sabbaths  by  abstinence  from  labor,  &.c. 

These  various  sacred  times  had  their  special  sacrificial 
services.  On  every  day,  a  lamb  was  offered,  morning  and 
evening,  for  a  burnt-offering,  together  with  the  appropri- 
ate meat- offering.  On  the  weekly  Sabbath,  the  daily  Sac- 
rifices were  doubled  and  fresh.  Shew  Bread  was  to  be 
put  on  the  Table.  On  the  first  day  of  each  months  there 
was  a  festival-offering  of  a  he-goat  for  a  Sin-offering,  and 
ten  animals,  viz.,  two  bullocks,  one  ram  and  seven  lambs 
of  the  first  year,  for  a  burnt-offering.  Ko  abstinence  from 
labor  was  enjoined,  but  a  trumpet  was  blown,  (^um. 
10  :  10)  which  represented  the  loud  call  to  God  by  the 
people  that  He  would  remember  them.  The  first  day  of 
the  seventh  month  was  to  be  kept  as  a  Sabbath,  and  a 
double  festival- offering  was  to  be  presented.  Abstinence 
from  labor  was  enjoined,  and  the  trumpet  was  sounded, 
in  louder  tones. 

I.  The  Fassover  was  instituted  when  they  left  Egypt,  and 
was  to  be  observed  annually  thenceforth.  It  was  called 
also  the  Feast  of  Unleavened  Bread.  It  consisted  of  two 
parts,  (a)  The  Passover  Meal  strictly  so  called ;  (b)  the 
eating  of  unleavened  bread  for  seven  days.  The  Passover 
is  to  be  reckoned  a  sacrifice.  Some  of  the  Reformed 
Theologians  deny  this  in  order  to  confute  the  Romanists 
who  said  that  the  Lord's  Supper  was  a  sacrifice,  because 
the  passover  which  it  supplanted  was  such.  That  it  was 
a  sacrifice  appears 


82 

(1)  Because  it  was  expressly  so  called.  Ex.  12:  27; 
I  Cor.  5  :  7.  (2)  It  was  so  re,^arded  by  the  Jews,  although 
the  blood  was  not  sprinkled  on  the  altar  at  first,  (Deut. 
16  :  5-7)  because  the  Tabernacle  was  not  yet  built.  It 
2vas  offered  there  and  the  blood  sprinkled  on  the  altar  in 
later  times.  II  Chron.  30  :  16 ;  35  :  11.  The  Passover 
was  not  a  iS'i/^offering.  It  had  none  of  the  latter's  peculiar 
features,  but  its  blood  had  an  atoning  virtue.  It  was  a 
species  of  Peace-oU'ering.     It  included  a  Sacrificial  Meal. 

The  requirements  were  exact.  The  lamb  was  to  be 
selected  on  the  tenth  day,  i.  e.^foitr  days  previous  to  the 
feast.  This  was  fancifully  supposed  by  fioftman  to  repre- 
sent the  four  generations  of  Israel  in  Egypt,  (Gen.  15  :  16,) 
while  others — Kurtz — supposed  it  to  have  reference  to 
the  symbolical  character  of  the  number  four.  Both  expla- 
nations are  too  remote.  It  was  probably  set  apart  on  the 
tenth  day  for  the  same  reason  that  the  great  Day  of 
Atonement  was  on  the  tenth  dsij.  Notice  the  Ten  Com- 
mandments and  the  ten  plagues,  etc.  It  occurs  frequently, 
and  besides  being  convenient,  is  symbolical  of  complete- 
ness. The  lamb  was  to  be  slain  between  the  ecenings,  where 
the  original  does  not  use  the  Dual,  and  which  may  mean 
(a)  between  the  sunset  of  the  first  day  and  the  total  dark- 
ness of  the  second ;  or  (b)  from  the  latter  part  of  the 
afternoon  till  sunset.  This  is  the  correct  view,  as  may  be 
shown.  In  the  first  place,  the  blood  was  to  be  sprinkled 
on  the  door  posts  and  lintels  of  the  house.  A^tonement 
was  thus  made  for  the  house  and  its  occupant.  The  head 
of  the  family  exercised  this  priestly  function,  which  was 
afterward  confined  to  the  priests. 

The  Passover  Meal  denoted  communion  with  God, 
based  on  the  expiation  of  sin. 

Peculiarities  of  this  Feast. — The  lamb  must  be  placed 
upon  the  table  whole.  No  bones  were  to  be  broken.  It 
was  typical  of  Christ's  body,  and  the  unity  of  His  church 
and  people.  The  v/hole  lamb  was  to  be  eaten  in  one 
house.  The  same  idea  was  included  as  before.  None 
must  be  left  until  the  next  day.  It  must  not  be  boiled, 
which  would  separate  it,  but  was  to  be  roasted,  to  pre- 
serve its  oneness.  No  part  of  it  was  to  be  carried  out  of 
the  house.  All  that  remained  was  to  be  burned,  to  pro- 
tect it  from  corruption  or  contact  with  common  things. 


83 

The  mmmer  of  eating  it  was  designed  to  remind  them 
of  their  previous  condition,  and  of  the  circumstances  of 
its  institution  and  the  great  deliverance  which  it  com- 
memorated. It  was  to  be  eaten  with  bitter  herbs,  which 
suggested  the  bitterness  of  Egyptian  oppression,  and  with 
unleavened  bread,  which  was  a  symbolical  representation 
of  incorruption,  and  which  had  also  an  historical  associa- 
tion, because  they  had  not  time  to  leaven  their  bread. 
Deut.  16 :  3.  It  was  to  be  eaten  in  haste,  with  their  loins 
girded,  and  shoes  on  their  feet,  and  staves  in  their  hands. 
These  peculiar  circumstances  were  laid  aside  in  later 
times.  During  each  of  these  seven  days,  a  goat  was  to  be 
oftered  for  a  sin-oliering,  and,  in  addition,  ten  animals, 
viz.,  2  bullocks,  1  ram,  and  7  lambs,  tor  a  burnt  ofiering, 
and  the  prescribed  meat-offering.  A  sheaf  of  the  first- 
fruits  was  to  be  waved  before  the  Lord,  before  they  could 
partake  of  the  harvest.     Lev.  23  :  10. 

II.  The  Feast  of  Weeks.— ¥\^{y  days  after  the  second 
day  of  the  Passover^  i.  e.,  the  day  following  the  completion 
of  seven  weeks.  It  was  called  also  the  Feast  of  Harvest, 
Ex.  23:  16;  the  day  of  First  Fruits;  and  was  called 
Pentecost  in  Josephus  and  in  the  Xew  Testament,  Acts 
2 :  1.  Barley  harvest  began  at  the  time  of  the  Passover, 
and  wheat  harvest  ended  with  the  Feast  of  Weeks.  This 
feast  lasted  one  day,  which  day  possessed  a  Sabbatic 
character,  ^o  work  was  to  be  done;  and  a  holy  convo- 
cation was  enjoined.  Two  loaves  of  the  first  fruits  and 
the  usual  festive  ofterino;,  viz  ,  a  he-o:oat  for  the  sin-offer- 
ing,  and  ten  animals  for  the  burnt-offering,  consisting  of 
2  bullocks,  1  ram,  and  7  lambs — and  the  customary  meat- 
offering. ]N'ow^  that  the  harvest  was  concluded,  loare.^ 
and  not  sheaves,  w^ere  to  be  brought,  just  as  at  the  Pass- 
over. Tiro  loaves  were  now  brought,  representing  a 
livelier  sense  of  gratitude  at  the  end  of  the  feast. 

III.  The  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  called  also  the  Feast  of 
Ingathering,  was  held  after  the  fruits  were  gathered  in, 
particularly  the  oil  and  wine.  It  was  celebrated  for  seven 
days,  beginning  wdth  the  15th  day  of  the  7th  month. 
They  were  to  dwell  in  booths,  commemorating  their  so- 
journ in  the  wilderness.  It  thus  had  both  historical  and 
agricultural  associations.  It  was  the  most  joyous  feast  of 
the  year.     The  offerings  were  larger  than  on  the  other  oc- 


84 

casions,  consisting  oi^  t/ro  rsims,  fonrieen  lambs,  and  thirteen 
bullocks  at  the  beginning,  and  seven  at  the  close.  The 
number  decreased  one  each  day,  making  70  in  all. 

The  first  day  was  observed  as  a  Sabbath,  and  then  the 
eighth  day,  or  the  day  after  the  festival,  which  did  not  be- 
long strictl}^  to  the  feast.  That  this  is  so  appears,  (1) 
because  the  lodging  in  the  booths  lasted  only  seven  days  ; 
and  (2)  because  the  sacrifices  on  this  day  did  not  stand  in 
regular  gradation  to  those  of  the  other  da3^s,  but  consisted 
of  ten  animals,  viz.,  one  he-goat,  one  bullock,  one  ram,  and 
seven  lambs.  This  was  a  solemn  termination  of  all  the 
festivals  of  the  year. 

The  Great  Day  of  Atonement. — This  occurred  five  days 
before  the  feast  of  Tabernacles.,  on  the  tenth  day  of  the 
seventh  month.  It  represented  a  general  atonement  for  the 
sins  of  Israel  during  the  year,  and  for  the  sanctuary  itself; 
Lev.  16  :  16.  The  atonement  on  this  day  was  not  merely 
for  undiscovered  sins,  because  these  were  included  in  the 
general  atonement  at  the  new  moon,  but  all  the  sins  of  the 
year  were  atoned  for  afresh.  This  was  an  intimation  that 
the  acts  of  atonement  were  incomplete,  as  indicated  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  This  was  not  merely  to  supple- 
ment the  previous  sacrifices  or  atonement,  but  it  was  the 
same  act.  It  Avas  made  in  the  Holy  of  Holies  by  the  High 
Priest,  and  was  thus  a  fuller  and  more  exalted  type  of 
Christ,  the  true  and  adequate  atonement.  The  entire  day 
was  observed  as  a  fast,  the  only  fast  of  divine  appointment 
in  the  Jewish  Calendar.  Then  came  the  special  services 
of  the  day.  The  High  Priest  first  bathed  himself  and  put 
on  a  clean  white  garment,  /.  e.,  the  ordinary  dress  of  the 
priests  and  not  his  usual  robe.  After  making  a  >SV?^  and 
Burnt-o^'eviBg  for  himself  and  his  house,  came  the  char- 
acteristic service  of  the  day — an  offering  of  two  he-goats 
and  a  ram  for  a  burnt-offering.  The  atonement  was  made 
in  the  Holy  of  Holies.  God  appeared  in  a  cloud  over  the 
Mercy- seat,  and  the  blood  of  the  sin-offering  of  the  priests 
and  of  the  sin-offering  of  the  people  was  sprinkled  upon 
the  Mercy-seat.  This  expiation  was  repeated  at  the  Altar 
of  Incense  and  at  the  Brazen  Altar*  in  the  Court.  The 
most  remarkable  peculiarity  was  in  the  fact  that  there 
•were  two  he-goats  in  the  sin-offering.  One  was  slain,  and 
its  blood  was  carried  into  the  Holv  of  Holies.     The  other 


85 

was  sent  into  tlie  wilderness.     Lots  were  first  cast  upon 
them,  one  for  Jehovah,  (La-Jehovah)  and  one  for  (La- 
AzAZEL,)  a  word  derived  from  Azal,  to  remove!" 
Four  explanations  of  this  term. 

1.  As  a  place  ; 

2.  As  the  name  of  the  oroat ; 

3.  As  an  abstract  term  ; 

4.  As  a  personal  being. 

I.  If  a  place,  it  must  be  either  the  proper  name  of  some 
particular  locality  in  the  wilderness  to  which  the  goat  was 
to  be  taken,  or  a  remote  retired  place.  There  is  no  trace 
anywhere  of  such  a  name  or  place.  In  Lev.  16  :  K),  he 
was  to  be  taken  into  the  wilderness. 

II.  The  English  version  and  the  Vulgate  apply  this 
term  to  the  goat,  and  render  it  "  Scape-goat.''  Some  say  it 
is  a  compound  word,  from  E  Z,  a  goat,  and  that  Azal 
means  to  go  away.  This  is  not  true,  but  a  fanciful  expla- 
nation. It  may  mean  something  entirely  removed.  One 
name  was  given  to  Jehovah,  and  one  La-Azazel. 

III.  If  it  was  an  abstract  term,  it  must  have  represented 
a  complete  removal,  and  explained  the  two  ideas  in  the 
pardon  of  sin, — (a)  expiation,  (b)  removal.  The  ordinary 
sacrifice  was  sufficient  to  express  the  former,  but,  in  this 
case,  both  ideas  must  be  represented ;  ^fJrst,  a  goat  was  to 
be  slain  as  an  expiation,  and,  secomUg,  the  sins  were  to  be 
carried  away  b}'  the  other  goat. 

IV.  Those  who  adopt  this  view  say  it  was  a  personal  des- 
ignation, a  name  for  Satan.  They  argue  (1)  that  it  makes 
a  more  exact  contrast  in  the  lots,  as  God  in  contradistinc- 
tion to  Satan.  (2)  That  this  goat  was  sent  to  Azazel,  m 
the  wilderness,  and  that  in  several  passages  of  Scripture 
the  wilderness  is  represented  as  the  especial  abode  of 
devils  and  evil  spirits;  Isa.  18:  21;  34:  14.  The  word 
translated  Satgr  is  translated  Devils  in  Lev.  17  :  7,  and  in 
Rev.  23  :  2.  Devils  are  spoken  of  as  inhabiting  waste 
places.  In  Matth.  12  :  48,  the  evil  spirit  is  spoken  of  aa 
walking  through  dry  places.  In  Luke  8  :  27,  we  read 
that  an  evil  spirit  was  in  the  tombs.  Also  in  the  Apoc- 
rypha ;  Tobit  8:3;  Baruch  4  :  35.  (3)  The  name  Azazel, 
they  say,  is  appropriate  for  Satan,  as  being  utter]y  removed 
from  the  presence  of  God.  The  difficulties  of  this  per- 
sonal view  are  (a)  Satan  is  nowhere  else  in  the  Bible  called 


86 

by  this  name,  (b)  There  is  no  allusion  to  Satan  as  con- 
nected with  the  Day  of  Atonement.  There  is  nothing  in 
the  Ceremonial  to  suggest  this  view,  unless  it  be  the  doubt- 
ful meaning  of  this  word.  Many  in  modern  times  adopt 
this  view,  on  this  supposition. 

If  Azazel  is  Satan,  it  is  variously  explained  m  four  toays. 

(1.)  That  the  goat  was  sent  as  a  sacrifice  to  propitiate 
the  Devil.  To  this  w^e  say  :  (a)  This  idea  is  abhorrent  to 
the  notions  of  religion  and  to  the  Mosaic  institutions, 
which  particularly  forbade  the  worship  of  anything  but 
God, — and  expressly  prohibited  sacrifice  to  Devils  ;  Lev. 
17  :  7.  (b)  The  two  goats  were  one  ofifering  and  not  two  ; 
and  were  also  a  /S'm-offering,  which  could  not  have  been 
appropriately  offered  to  the  Devil,  because  it  implied  holi- 
ness in  the  person  to  whom  it  was  offered.  Both  the 
goats  were  brought  to  the  Tabernacle,  and  God  decided 
which  was  to  be  sent  into  the  wilderness.  The  only 
reason  why  there  were  two  animals  was  because  two  ideas 
were  to  be  represented ;  one  must  be  alive  to  carry  away 
the  sin  after  the  other  had  been  sacrificed.  The  second 
goat  was  really  the  first  one  over  again,  being  analogous 
to  the  two  birds  in  the  cleansing  of  the  leper. 

(2.)  That  the  Goat,  laden  with  the  sins  of  the  people, 
was  sent  to  the  Devil,  to  be  tormented  by  him,  and  to 
show  God's  hatred  of  sin.  There  is  nothing  to  substan- 
tiate this  view. 

(3.)  That  the  sins  belonged  to  the  Devil,  and  hence 
were  sent  there  in  the  person  of  the  goat. 

(4.)  This  is  the  most  common  explanation,  that  it  was 
an  act  of  defiance  and  scorn  against  the  Deril,  the  seducer 
and  accuser  of  Mankind.  The  sins  are  sent  to  the  Devil, 
having  been  first  atoned  for,  that  he  may  do  his  worst 
with  them.     He  can  never  bring  Israel  into  condemnation. 

The  choice  seems  to  be  between  this  last  view  and  the 
view  which  makes  it  an  abstract  idea.  It  would  seem  that 
the  latter  is  preferable.  It  appears  that  the  two  goats  are 
identical  in  signification,  one  supplementing  the  other, — 
the  second  carrying  out  what  the  first  could  not  do. 

All  t}jpical  theories  which  make  a  distinction  between 
the  two  goats  are  erroneous. 

(1.)  Prof  Bush  says  that  the  first  goat  represents  Christ, 
and  the  second  the  Jews. 


87 

(2.)  Some  hold  that  the  first  s^oat  represented  Christ's 
human  nature,  and  the  second  his  divine  nature. 

(3.)  Or  that  the  first  represented  Christ's  death,  and  the 
second  his  resurrection. 

Christ  accomplished  hoth  ideas,  and  hence  both  were 
typical  of  Christ,  the  first  making  atonement  for,  and  the 
second  securino;  the  removal  of  sin.  After  this,  the  High 
Priest  removed  his  dress,  washed  himself,  put  on  his 
official  robes,  and  then  offered  the  proper  offerings.  The 
person  who  took  the  goat  into  the  wilderness,  and  the  one 
who  burned  the  fat  of  the  sin-oftering,  were  both  rendered 
unclean. 


88 


Lectures  in  Philology. 


The  Families  op  Languages. 

Gen.  ii:  i — "And  the  whole  earth  was  of  one 
language,  and  of  one  speech :"  and  so  it  was  origi- 
nally. 

This  verse  has  been  a  stimulus  to  endeavors  to 
find  this  primitive  tongue.  The  test  of  having  found 
it  would  be  to  show  clearly  that  all  others  owe  their 
origin  to  and  are  derived  from  it.  All  research,  how- 
ever, has  thus  far  shown  that  at  this  day  it  is  too  late 
to  discover  it.  But  though  such  is  the  case,  yet 
astonishing  analogies  have  been  discovered. 

Research  formerly  proceeded  on  several  errone- 
ous assumptions :— e.  g., 

1.  It  was  assumed  that  a  bare  similarity  of  sound 
between  words  of  like  sense  denoted  identity  of  ori- 
gin. But  this  is  not  so;  while,  on  the  other  hand, 
sounds  and  words  originally  alike  must  be  so  much 
changed  as  not  to  be  recognized.  The  modern 
Greek  ^aTt  —  Eye,  and  the  Polynesian  i/m^a  —  Eye^ 
have  no  connection  of  origin.  On  the  other  hand,. 
jou7'ney  comes  from  dies,  through  diurnus  and  the 

French  jo2ir.     So  also  strange7\ 

2.  It  was  assumed  that  the  presence  of  the  same 
or  related  words  in  two  languages,  established  their 
organic  connection.  But  such  words  may  have  been 
merely  borrowed  from  one  language  by  another  by 
intercourse; — e.  g.,  Moslem,  Sultan,  Dragoman,  are 


89 

from  the  Arabic,  and  yet  the  EngHsh  has  no  connec- 
tion with  it. 

3.  They  paid  attention  only  to  the  etymology  of 
the  words,  disregarding  the  grammatical  structure  of 
the  language,  which  is  a  truer  test.  Though  the 
English  has  words  from  many  languages,  its  gram- 
matical structure  clearly  denotes  its  origin,  the 
Anglo-Saxon,  Germanic.  The  Turkish,  the  Persian, 
the  Hindoo  languages  are  entirely  distinct  from  the 
Arabic,  and  though  they  are  full  of  words  borrowed 
from  the  Arabic,  their  grammatical  structure  clearly 
shows  their  distinctness. 

4.  It  was  assumed  that  relationship  between  two 
languages  proved  that  one  was  derived  from  the 
other:  whereas  both  may  have  been  derived  from 
some  other  language.  Latin  is  related  to  Greek : 
both  are  related  to  Sanscrit:  yet  neither  has  sprung 
from  the  other.     There  is  only  an  affinity. 

Now  that  sounder  principles  have  been  adopted, 
although  unity  of  language  has  not  been  and  prob- 
ably cannot  be  reached,  yet  astonishing  analogies 
have  been  discovered,  and  languages  have  been 
spontaneously  reduced  to  a  few  Groups.  Ethnology 
aids  here,  though  its  divisions  and  those  of  Philology 
do  x\oX.  pi^ecisely  coincide.  There  are  nations  closely 
allied  by  physical  structure,  which  speak  languages 
entirely  distinct,  and  vice  versa.  Hence  existing 
diversity  of  both  are  not  inconsistent  with  unity  of 
origin. 

The  Old  Testament  is  written  in  Hebrew,  (with 
a  few  verses  in  Chaldee,  now  called  Palestinian 
Aramaic).  This  language  was  not  selected  because 
of  any  special  sacredness,  or  because  it  was  the 
primitive  language;  but  merely  because  it  was  the 
language  spoken  by  the  people  chosen  as  the  cus- 
todians of  revelation  durinor  the  time  the  revelation 
was  being  given. 


90 

There  are  eight  great  FamiHes  of  Languages,  in- 
cluding almost  all.  Some  few  have  not  yet  been 
classified;  e. g-.^  the  Basque  language,  near  the  Bay 
of  Biscay,  in  France,  has  no  apparent  affinity  to  any 
language.  Many  have  not  yet  been  thoroughly  ex- 
amined. Only  two  have.  But  enough  is  known  to 
justify  the  foregoing  classification.  These  eight 
Families  diffe.r  not  only  in  their  stock  of  zuords,  but 
also  in  xh^w  general  structure,  and  are  thus  divided 
into  three  great  Groups. 

I.  Isolating  Languages,  or  those  of  undeveloped 
roots:  having  no  inflection  ;  no  parts  of  speech;  no 
modifications  of  the  forms  of  words  to  express  num- 
ber, gender,  tense,  etc. ;  and  no  derivation  of  words 
from  one  another;  but  only  ultimate  roots  thrown 
together,  like  stones  in  a  heap. 

II.  Agglutinative  Languages  : — One  step  better; 
not  having  mere  ultimate  roots  loosely  thrown  to- 
gether, but  possessing  all  the  various  parts  of  speech, 
gender,  number,  etc.,  by  modifying  syllables;  though 
these  are  only  artificially  cemented  to  the  root,  and 
do  not  lose  their  individuality.  The  word  is  built 
up  by  additions,  the  original  and  independent  char- 
acter of  its  constituents  not  however  being  lost  sight 
of,  —  a  building. 

III.  I7iflective  Languages :  —  most  highly  devel- 
oped: the  word  not  beine  a  mere  conglomeration  of 
distmct  roots,  but  an  organic  whole.  It  is  a  growth, 
in  which  the  branches  are  inseparably  joined  to  the 
trunk,  —  a  growth. 

I.    Includes  3  families. 
11.  ''         3  " 

III.  ''  2 

We  will  giance  at  these  families.  For  details  see 
Dwight's  Philology,   Max  Muller,  Whitney,  etc. 


91 

I.  Isolating  Group. 

First  Family, — Malay  or  Polynesian.  This  ex- 
tends over  Malacca  and  the  great  body  of  Islands  in 
the  Indian  and  Pacific  oceans  from  Madagascar  to 
the  Sandwich  Islands. 

Polysyllabic ;  restricted  in  the  number  of  sounds; 
has  from  seven  to  ten  consonants.  Each  word  is  a 
simple  syllable,  i.  e.,  a  vowel,  or  a  consonant  and 
vowel.  A  mixed  syllable,  or  a  final,  or  compound 
consonant  is  unknown. 

Sec o7id  Family, —  Chinese.  This  extends  over  S.  E. 
Asia,  China  proper,  farther  India,  Thibet,  Birmah, 
Slam. 

Monosyllabic ;  words  have  no  determinate  value 
as  parts  of  speech  ;  the  same  word  may  be  a  verb, 
and  an  adjective,  and  a  noun,  etc.  There  is  no  in- 
flection for  gender,  except  personal  pronouns,  which 
have  a  peculiar  variation  for  number,  by  fusion  with 
numerals,  forming  a  singular,  dual,  triple  and  plural. 
The  Pronoun  of  the  First  Person  has  a  variation,  ac- 
cording as  the  speaker  is  included  or  not.  This  is 
the  purest  type  of  Isolating  Languages  ;  the  most 
important;  the  best  known;  the  most  highly  culti- 
vated ;  has  a  lar^e  and  extensive  literature. 

Third  Family, — Haniitic,  Coptic,  or  Ancie^it  Egyp- 
tian. This  is  separated  from  the  other  families 
of  the  group  by  the  entire  continent  of  Asia.  It  is 
spoken  also  in  Abyssinia,  and  among  the  Libyan 
tribes,  as  w^ell  as  among  the  Hottentots,  and  the 
Bushmen  of  South  Africa. 

Monosyllabic ;  consists  of  mere  roots  ;  has  a  slight 
approach  to  inflection  ;  has  syllabic  suffixes. 

See  the  hieroglyphics,  mummy  wrappings,  etc. 
This  language  ceased  to  be  spoken  in  Egypt  three 
or  four  centuries  ago. 


92 

II.  Agglutinative  Group. 

First  Family.  This  is  the  most  important  Family, 
— Turanian  or  Scythian.  Includes  the  roving  tribes 
of  Central  and  Northern  Africa,  and  along  the  north 
of  Europe  ;  consisting  of  Mongolians,  Tartars,  Fins, 
Laplanders,  Turks,  Southern  Hindostanee,  Japanese. 

The  root  is  always  at  the  beginning  of  the  word, 
agglutinative ;  the  syllables  being  always  suffixed. 

Second  Family, — South  African.  All  Southern 
Africa,  from  a  few  degrees  north  of  the  Equator, 
with  the  exception  of  the  Hottentots  and  Bushmen. 

All  the  languages  of  this  Family  are  closely  re- 
lated, the  West  and  East  Coast  of  Africa  beingf  much 
alike.  Though  spoken  by  barbarous  tribes,  yet  it 
has  great  flexibility  of  structure  and  copiousness  of 
form.  It  has  a  series  of  conjugations  much  like  the 
Hebrew.  The  agglutinative  syllables  are  often  pre- 
fixed.    Uniformly  so  in  the  declension  of  nouns,  etc. 

Third  Family,  —  American.  North  American 
Indians.  It  has  an  immense  variety  of  dialects,  yet 
all  are  related. 

Polysynthetic  or  incorporative  ;  accumulates  words 
of  enormous  length.  Pronouns  and  numerals  have 
from  three  to  ten  syllables. 

III.  Inflective  Group. 

Two  Families, — spoken  by  the  white  race,  and  the 
most  influential.  It  is  spoken  by  civilized  nations, 
and  is  therefore  best  known. 

( I . )  Indo-European . 

(2.)  Semitic. 

The  New  Testament  is  written  in  the  former  ;  the 
Old  Testament  in  the  latter.  The  Indo-European  is 
so  called  from  the  extremes  of  territory  where  it  is 
spoken — India  and  Europe.  We  find  a  belt  ex- 
tending between  them  through  Afghanistan,  Persia, 
Europe,  (excepting  in  the  north  of  Europe.) 


9a 

Differences  Between  the  Two  Families: 

Indo-European  to7igues  form  words  and  inflections 
by  additions  external  to  the  root ;  Semitic  by  internal 
changes  niaijdy.      E.  g. : 

Love — lover — loving — beloved. 

Amo — amor — amatus — amabilis. 

Stap — Stsp — ^Dp — StDp — Stsp — etc. 

The  •Semitic  is  formed  by  vowel  changes  in  the 
body  of  the  root,  or  prefixed  or  affixed :  or  else  by 
doubling  the  letters  of  the  root,  (except  in  pronomi- 
nal suffixes.) 

In  the  Indo-European,  formative  prefixes,  etc., 
are  outside  ;  the  root  only  changes  through  laws  of 
euphony,  as  caedo,  caesus,  incido,  in  order  to  ease  the 
pronunciation.  Some  internal  changes  have  now  a 
signification  which  they  did  not  originally  possess  ; 
e.g.,  man,  men;  foot,  feet;  break,  broke.  These 
look  like  internal  inflection,  but  are  not  so.  Ma^i 
had  a  regular  plural  mans, — the  change  of  ^  to  ^ 
being  merely  euphonic,  and  often  occurring  in  the 
singular. 

The  Indo-European  root  is  a  single  syllable,  the 
ultimate  unit  of  articulate  speech  ;  a  vowel,  or  a 
vowel  with  one  or  more  associated  consonants.  The 
root  is  one  indivisible,  invariable  whole,  the  vowel 
being  an  inalienable  part  of  it.  The  Semitic  roots 
have  only  consonants,  and  as  a  root  is  unpronounce- 
able, being  a  frame-work  or  skeleton,  while  the 
vowels  are  the  tissue  and  flesh.  Consonants  deter- 
mine the  radical  signification  of  the  word  which  the 
vowels  shade  or  alter.  The  Semitic  alphabet  has  no 
vowels  ;  the  Indo-European  languages,  in  which 
vowels  form  an  essential  part,  in  adopting  the  Semi- 
tic alphabet,  changed  the  superabundant  guttural 
into  vowels,     e.  ^-.,  x=^a,  a  ;  n^^^f,  e ;  nrj^  a;  ;*     o. 


94 

There  is  no  fixed  number  of  letters  In  the  Indo- 
European  roots,  but  they  must  be  pronounced  in  one 
syllable.  The  Semitic  has  a  uniform  number  ;  bilit- 
erals  are  too  brief,  and  triliterals  are  the  briefest  that 
could  give  a  sufficient  number  of  combinations. 
Therefore  Semitic  words  are  triliteral.  Quadriliterals 
are  a  later  formation. 

(i.)  It  is  hence  easier  for  the  Semitic  verb  to  have 
its  peculiarities  than  for  the  Indo-European  verb. 
The  verb  in  Semitic  is  the  word  par  excellence,  giv- 
ing life  to  every  sentence.  It  has  the  simplest 
vowels,  as  Kamets,  etc.,  especially  in  the  Arabic.  It 
intensifies  the  meaning  and  pronunciation  by  doub- 
ling the  radicals.  The  verb  has  fewer  peculiarities 
in  the  Indo-European.  Causatives,  desideratives, 
etc.,  correspond  in  some  degree  to  the  Semitic  in- 
flections. 

(2.)  Hence  there  is  a  richness  in  the  Indo-Euro- 
pean inflections,  and  more  variety  is  possible  ;  pov- 
erty In  the  Semitic  as  to  tense,  mood,  etc.  Greek 
has  nine  tenses  ;  Semitic  two.  Unlimited  means  In 
Indo-European  of  multiplying  them  ;  but  the  changes 
of  vowels  possible  in  the  three  consonants  of  the 
Semitic,  are  few.  The  Semitic  noun  in  the  construct 
state,  results  from  the  same  fundamental  principle. 

The  Indo-European  great  variety  of  tongues, — 
Celtic,  Germanic,  Italic,  Sclavonic,  Greek,  Iranian, 
Indian.  The  Semitic  has  only  four  branches — Ara- 
maean, Hebrew,  and  Arabic,  all  closely  related. 

(3.)  The  Semitic  has  been  of  a  stationary  character 
from  its  very  formation;  the  Indo-European  has 
more  mobility.  The  former  is  rigid  and  changes 
slowly.  From  Moses  to  MalachI,  (1,000  years,)  there 
appears  less  change  than  in  the  English  since  Shake- 
speare, (300  years,)  while  1,000  years  back,  in  the 
time  of  Alfred,  the  Saxon  language  was  used,  and 
the  English  was  still  unformed.    The  Indo-European 


95 

is  perpetually  developing  and  progressing- ;  old  forms 
dropping  out,  new  forms  coming  in.  The  Semitic 
structure  does  not  admit  of  this — and  this  reacted  on 
the  nations  speaking  it.  The  Semite  is  the  same 
from  age  to  age  ;  has  the  same  habits  and  modes  of 
life.  The  Semite  remains  in  the  same  place  ;  the 
Indo-European  stretches  over  both  of  the  continents 
of  Europe  and  Asia.  For  this  reason,  the  Old  Testa- 
ment was  given  to  the  Semite,  to  remain  and  keep 
the  oracles  of  God.  But  when  Christ  came,  and  the 
Gospel  was  aggressive,  and  to  be  spread,  then  the 
New  Testament  was  given  in  an  Indo-European 
tongue. 

The  lack  of  variety  in  the  Semitic  tongues  is  due 
not  only  to  their  method  of  internal  y7^<f/w2,  but  also 
to  their  triliteral  roots.  No  attrition  of  consonants 
at  ends  of  words  is  possible,  for  the  word  can't  spare 
any,  without  changing  itself  entirely  ;  no  abridging  ; 
no  changing  of  the  three  consonants.  The  Arabic 
has  now  many  roots  which  are  the  same  as  those 
used  by  Moses. 

The  stationary  character  of  the  people  reacted  on 
the  language,  as  seen  in  the  fact  that  there  is  no  need 
of  new  terms,  and  their  own  lannruagre  was  not  im- 
posed  by  conquest  and  commerce  on  new  nations, 
or  corrupted  and  mixed  thereby,  as  is  seen  in  the 
English.  Arabic  is  now  left  alone  to  represent  the 
family. 

The  Second  great  Differe?ice,  (relating  to  the  mean- 
ing, not  to  the  outward  form,)  is  that  the  Semitic 
is  more  pictorial ;  the  Indo-Ettropean  is  more  reflec- 
tive. 

E. g.,  (i.)  Semitic  has  only  two  genders;  the  idea 
of  sex  being  carried  through  all  inanimate  nature 
and  abstractions.  Indo-European  languages  almost 
all  have  a  third  gender  for  objects  destitute  of  sex, 
though  not  always  regarding  it. 


96 

(2.)  While,  In  both  languages,  words  denoting 
spiritual  abstractions  are  based  on  roots  primarily 
relating  to  external  objects,  in  Indo-European  this 
primary  idea  is  lost  sight  of,  in  Semitic  it  is  retained. 
As  Sincere,  sine  cera — pure  honey;  tribulation,  tri- 
hulu7n,  a  threshing  instrument;  agony,  referring  to 
the  struggles  of  the  contestants  in  games.  Licidcate, 
tread  grain  into  the  soil.  In  Semitic  the  metaphor 
remains  in  consciousness;  both  significations  co-exist. 
Anger,  ^,  '"];«,  to  breathe,  hard  breathing;  n:?n,  heat; 
]nn,  burning;  i';\  boiling;  tj^,  breaking  asunder;  D^n, 
roaring.  Desire,  xpy,  thirst;  f]DD,  grow  pale.  Pardon, 
n?3,  cover;  nna,  hide.  Patie?it,  slow  breathing;  im- 
patient, fast  breathing. 

(3.)  A  want  of  precision,  or  definiteness  of  expres- 
sion. Their  pictorial  form  of  expression  barely  sug- 
gests the  thought  in  outline.  It  aims  at  vividness 
and  force  more  than  detail.  Thus  the  Semitic  (In  the 
tenses)  refers  all  to  the  unlimited  past  or  the  unlim- 
ited future,  and  has  only  one  form  of  each.  The 
Indo-European  adds  the  vanishing  present,  and  to 
the  other  various  modifications,  adds  the  imperfect, 
perfect,  pluperfect,  future,  and  future  perfect.  So  of 
moods. 

The  Semitic  gives  the  sentences  in  simple  suc- 
cession without  concatenation,  without  denoting  their 
relation,  and  has  few  conjunctions.  It  simply  joins 
two  clauses  by  the  word  and,  leaving  the  reader  to 
guess  at  the  nature  of  the  connection.  The  Indo- 
European  has  a  multitude  of  particles,  etc. 

(4.)  Range  and  description  of  their  literatures. 
The  Semitic  writes  history  (or  palpable  facts,) 
tales,  fables,  parables  (or  imaginative  fiction,)  lyric 
and  sententious  poetry,  brief  utterances  of  the  feel- 
ings or  wise  sayings.  But  It  has  no  romances  proper, 
no  heroic  or  dramatic  poems  with  complicated  plots. 
It  has  no  orations  of  such  a  kind  as  those  of  Webster 


97 

and  Calhoun  ;  and  no  arguments  advancing  to  an 
irresistible  conclusion. 

Renan,  taking  up  the  idea,  says  the  Semites  were 
monotheists  by  instinct ;  but  he  takes  no  notice  of  the 
idolatrous  Assyrians  and  Ninevites,  who  were  Sem- 
ites. 

Hence  the  Semitic  was  especially  fitted  for  the 
Old  Testament,  dealing  in  outlines  and  shadows. 
The  New  Testament  is  precise  and  clearly  revealed, 
and  therefore  in  its  final  form,  required  an  Indo- 
European  tongue.  Paul  was  educated  in  Grecian 
philosophy,  etc. 

The  Third  Dijference  is  a  subordinate  one.  The 
mode  of  writing.  The  Semite  writes  from  right  to 
left;  the  Indo-European  the  reverse.  (Exceptions  to 
both  are  found.  The  Ethiopic  from  left  to  right  like 
the  Greek  ;  Persian,  Hindoo,  from  right  to  left  like 
the  Arabic.) 

Points  of  Agreement. 

They  belong  to  the  same  Group,  the  Inflective, 
and  have,  therefore,  (i)  many  grammatical  analogies  ; 
(2)  a  great  number  of  roots  clearly  identical.  For 
examples,  see  Gesenius.  (Though  many  similar 
sounds  are  merely  casual;  e.g.,  "ikd  well,  and  the 
English  bore  are  not  related  ;  nor  are  iq'\  and  direc- 
tion;  nor  natural  sounds  k^d,  cry ;  i"^,  pa,  pater.) 

Some  say  all  triliteral  roots  were  originally  bilit- 
eral,  and  that  the  triliterals  were  formed  by  insert- 
ingweak  letters,  or  adding  letters :  tj  tocut.  -^j: — tocut 
off — ;•]:  to  cut  down — Sn  to  flay — ttj  to  shear — njj  to 
hew — dt:  to  devour — in:  to  separate — ^u  to  pass 
through,  etc. 

The  name  given  to  the  family  of  languages  kin- 
dred to  Hebrew  and  Chaldee,  have  been  many.  Je- 
rome called  them  ''  oriental''  but  we  know  of  coun- 
tries farther  east,  where  the  Semitic  prevails  ;  "  Syro- 


98 

Arabian,''  (named  from  the  extreme  limits,  just  as 
Indo-P2uropean  ;)  "  Seinitic^'  (from  Shem)  is  the  nam^ 
most  used,  for  (Gen.  lo,)  Shemites  are  the  chief 
member  of  the  group.  The  Hebrew,  Aramagic  and 
Arabic  languages,  come  from  Shem  ;  the  Elamites 
and  Libyans  are  also  from  Shem,  though  these 
speak  Indo  European.  Canaanites  and  Phoenicians 
are  from  Ham,  yet  they  speak  the  Semitic  lan- 
guages. 

The  Semitic  tongue  extends  from  the  Red  Sea 
and  the  Mediterranean,  to  the  Persian  Gulf  and  Ti- 
gris, and  from  Mt.  Taurus  on  the  North,  to  the 
southern  extremity  of  the  Arabian  Peninsula. 

It  includes   Arabia,   Palestine,  Syria,   and   Meso 
potamia.   These  tongues  existed  here  as  far  back  as 
they  can   be    traced,   and  whenever   driven    hence. 
They  are  spoken  there  yet,  though  overrun  by  Mo- 
hammedanism. 

Semitic  was  the  language  of  civilization,  of  trade, 
of  religion,  in  Nineveh,  Babylon,  Tyre,  Judea,  Juda- 
ism and  Christinanity  arose  in  Palestine.  The  latter, 
though  spread  through  the  medium  of  Greek,  yet 
took  Semitic  types  of  thought.  Some  say  that  parts 
of  the  N.  T.,  as  Matthew,  were  originally  in  Hebrew, 
but  of  this  we  cannot  be  certain.  Mohammed  took 
his  language  from  Arabia.  Babylon  (Babel,  confu- 
sion of  tongues)  has  had  a  mixed  population,  and 
therefore  mixed  languages  ever  since,  just  as  in 
Constantinople  to-day.  Nebuchadnezzar  and  other 
monarchs  were  Indo-Kuropeans,  but  their  generals, 
e.  g.,  Robshekar.  were  Semites  and  spoke  Ara- 
maean. The  name  of  their  deity  Bel  is  Semitic. 
Some  names  are  partly  each.  On  their  ruins  there 
are  some  Semitic  characters,  some  Indo-European, 
some  in  a  third  language,  perhaps  Scythian. 

The  Canaanites  spoke  a  Semitic  dialect  much  like 
the  Hebrew.     Abraham  held  intercourse  without  an 


99 

Interpreter  ;  but  in  Egypt  Jacob's  sons  required  one. 
Proper  names,  Melchlsedec,  x^blmelech,  Klrjath- 
jearlm,  Baal,  Moloch,  etc.,  are  Semitic. 

The  Phoejiiciajis  spoke  Semitic,  and  so  also  did 
their  colonies,  Carthage,  and  even  Tarshish  on  the 
southern  coast  of  Spain.  This  might  arise  from, 
their  nearness  to  Canaan.  Their  expensive  literature 
has  all  perished.  We  can  judge  (a)  from  ancient 
authors  of  other  languages,  quoting  proper  names 
and  other  words.  But  the  sound  Is  often  inadequately- 
expressed  in  a  foreign  language,  and  is  unreliable. 
(b)  From  Phoenician  monuments;  but  they  have  no 
sounds,  and  no  vowels,  spacing,  punctuation,  etc. 

(a)  Proper  names — Tyre,  niv,  Rock;  Carthage,  lyin 
J7p,  New  City  ;  Adonis,  'j-i«.  Lord ;  Hannibal,  ^;'3  '3n, 
favor  of  Baal ;  HasdriibaL  ^;:3  ni;',  help  of  Baal ;  Dido, 
beloved  ;  Cadmus,  Dip.,  the  east,  oriental. 

Plautus  has  a  passage  in  Carthaginian  and  a  Latin 
translation,  but  text  is  corrupted. 

(b)  Monuments,  as  found  at  Malta,  Marseilles,  and 
Cadiz,  have  Phoenician  names.  The  same  is  learned 
from  Carthage.  From  Tyre  we  have  coins,  gems, 
votive  tablets.  All  show  that  the  language  of  the 
Phoenicians  was  like  the  Hebrew.  The  Moabite 
Stone  shows  this. 

Some  have  said  that  Coptic  should  be  classed 
with  Semitic,  as  being  merely  an  older  type  and  a 
more  primitive  form  of  it.  This  point  is  still  In  dis- 
pute. The  argument  is  based  on  similarity  of  pro- 
nouns and  some  pronominal  suffixes.  But  the  weight 
of  authority  is  against  it.  There  are  three  branches 
of  Semitic  Languages: 

1.  //<?^r<2/V=? Hebrew  and  Phoenician. 

2.  Aramaic  Q\\2\(\^^,  Syrlac,  Samaritan  (mon- 
grel). 

3.  Arabic^  hr^xa  proper,  and  Ethiopic  (spoken 
in  Abyssinia), 


100 

Hebrew  is  intermediate,  both  geographically  and 
philologically.  Aramaic  is  north  of  it,  Arabic  south. 
The  Arabic  is  the  most  soft,  flexible  and  copious,  the 
Aramaic  least  so.  The  Aramaic  regular  vei^b  has 
one  vowel  (Spp),  the  Hebrew  two  i'lMpj.  Arabic  th7^ee, 
.  C^Pp)  Co7ijugations  or  species.  The  Aramaic  has 
thirteen,  eleven  of  which  are  double,  thus  numbering 
twenty-four.     The  Hebrew  has  seven,  the  Arabic 

The  Future,  The  Arabic  has  four  forms,  the 
Hebrew  has  three,  (simple,  paragogic,  and  apocopat- 
ed). The  Dual.  The  Aramaic  has  none  ;  the  He- 
brew only  in  nouns  ;  the  Arabic  in  nouns  and  verbs. 
Their  varying  copiousness  is  shown  in  vocabularies 
and  alphabets.  The  Aramaic  has  the  original  twenty- 
two  letters;  the  Hebrew  doubles  the  pronunciation 
of  one.  Sin  or  Shin,  really  making  twenty-three  ;  the 
Arabic  doubles  six,  making  twenty-eight. 

Historical  O^^dek. 

I.  Hebrew.  2.  Aramaean  3.  Arabic.  Hebrew 
is  the  oldest  and  has  the  oldest  literature.  The 
Arabic  is  the  only  one  now  in  use  as  a  spoken  lan- 
guage, except  among  a  few  scattered  tribes.  The 
number  of  dialects  of  Semitic,  therefore,  unlike  the 
Indo-European,  is  diminishing  rather  than  increasing; 
the  Arabic  alone  remains.  But  this  does  not  prove 
that  the  Arabic  is  the  youngest  and  an  outgrowth 
of  the  others. 

Gen.  31  ;  47. — Aramaean  was  distinct  from  He- 
brew; ^.  ^-.j  Laban  gives  the  place  mentioned  an 
Aramaean  name,  Jegar-sahadutha,  but  Jacob  gives  it 
a  Hebrew  name,  Gilead. 

Gen.  10:  26. — The  name  Almodad  has  the  prefix 
"^K,  the  Aramaic  article. 

In  reality  Arabic  is  the  oldest  and  stands  in  rela- 
tion to  the  Semitic  as  Sanskrit  does  to  Indo-Euro- 
pean.    Even   in    the   days   of  Moses,   Hebrew   had 


101 

undereone  more  chancres  than  Arabic  had  in  Mahom- 
et's  time. 

For  purposes  of  comparison,  Arabic  is  more 
copious  and  Hving ;  Aramaic  is  more  closely  related 
to  Hebrew. 

All  these  languages  have  been  and  still  are  re- 
garded as  sacred,  as  Hebrew  amonn-  the  Jews  ; 
Aramaic  or  Syriac  among  oriental  Christians  ;  Ara- 
bic among  Mohammedans,  Turks,  and  as  in  the 
Koran. 


/^/^.a 


HEBREW. 

The  Hebrlw  Language,  or  the  original  language 
of  the  Old  Testament. 

The  Semitic  family  of  languages   included  three 
principle  branches, 
'/^v-  I.   Aramaic,  including  the  Chaldee  and  Synac. 

2.  Hebrew,  -^<^^'  '-^^^'-  '^^ 

3.  Arabic.     C^  -        r-/.^^.. 

The  Hebrew  was  intermediate  between  the  other 
two  in  its  geographical  position  and  its  character. 

The  Hebj^ew,  as  a  language,  received  its  name 
from  the  Hebrew  people,  who  were  so  called  for  one 
of  two  reasons  ;  the  word  -^3;^  is  derived  either  (a) 
from  n;:!;*,  meaning  beyond,  and  applied  to  one  be- 
longing to  the  region  beyond  the  Euphrates  east- 
ward, and  hence  applicable  to  Abraham,  Gen.  14  :  13. 
This  derivation  has  the  sanction  of  the  Septuagint, 
which  renders  the  word  6  Ttf parng,  which  means  tke 
one  beyond,  (b)  It  may  be  derived  from  Eber,  (Gen.  "^  r?'^?' 
II  :  14,)  an  ancestor  of  Abraham  of  the  sixth  gene- 
ration. (Eber  in  English  has  no  aspiration,  but  the 
loss  of  the  aspirate  only  shows  the  transition  from 
Hebrew  to  English.)  Gen.  10  :  25  may  suggest  the 
reason  whyZi<5^r  was  the  name  given  to  his  descend- 
ants. In  this  passage  Eber  called  his  son  Peleg, 
because  in   his  days  the  earth  was  divided.     Eber 


102 

then  would  be  the  head  of  a  family  after  the  confu- 
sion of  tongues,  and  his  descendants  would  naturally 
have  his  name.  It  is  according  to  O.  T.  analogy 
that  a  race  should  be  named  from  an  individual ; 
e.  g.,  Israelites,  Ammonites,  &c.  Whichever  deriva- 
tion be  approved,  the  term  Hebreiv  might  be  expect- 
ed to  embrace  other  races  than  the  Israelites,  and 
there  is  such  an  intimation  in  Num.  2  :  24.  Ebe7' 
is  spoken  of  as  a  name  extending  over  a  number  of 
peoples  east  of  the  Euphrates.  It  has  been  claimed 
that  Gen.  10:  21,  shows  that  the  words  "all  the 
children  o{  Ebei''^  indicate  that  the  word  Hebrew 
came  from  this  derivation.  This  is  not  conclusive, 
because  Eber  may  have  been  the  name  of  a  territory. 
In  ordinary  language,  the  term  Hebrezvis  used  exclu- 
sively of  the  Israelites.  Abraham  was  a  Hebrew, 
but  the  children  of  Keturah,  or  Ishmael,  or  Esau, 
were  never  called  Hebrews.  Hebreiv  was  their 
national  name,  Israel -wdiS  their  domestic  and  theocratic 
name. 

From  the  reign  of  David,  the  name  Hebrezu  is 
almost  lost,  and  Israel  came  to  be  used  for  the  ten 
tribes  in  distinction  from  Judah.  In  the  N,  T.  the 
word  y^ew  denoted  any  one  belonging  to  the  Jewish 
people  anywhere  ;  Hebrews  were  those  Jews  who 
dwelt  in  Palestine  and  spoke  the  Aramaic.  Those 
who  spoke  Greek  were  called  Grecians^  not  Greeks. 

The  Hebrew  language  is  not  so  called  in  the  O. 
T.,  but  is  called  the  Jew's  language.  Is.  36:  11.  In 
Is.  19:  18  it  is  called  the  language  of  Canaan.  The 
first  application  of  the  name  Hebrew  to  a  language 
is  found  in  the  Prologue  to  Ecclesiasticus.  In  the 
N.  T.  and  Josephus,  the  term  "  Hebrew  language" 
is  used  both  for  the  Hebrew  proper  and  for  Ara- 
maean ;  i.  e.,  the  tongue  spoken  by  the  Hebrew- 
people  at  that  time.  jno.  5:2;  Acts  21  :  40.  Later 
Jewish  writers  called  the  Hebrew  the  "  holy  tongue," 


103 

In  distinction  from  the  Aramaean,   which   succeeded 
it  and  was  called  the  ''profane  tongue." 

The  very  high  antiquity  of  the  Hebrew  is  shown 
from  the  antiquity  of  its  literature,  which  is  more 
ancient  than  that  of  any  other  language.  The  writ- 
ings of  Moses  preserve  antediluvian  fragments  ; — 
e.  o.,  that  of  Lamech.  In  these  and  in  proper  na'nes, 
we  have  L^dimpses  of  roots  and  phrases  already 
obsolete  in  the  time  of  Moses.  The  Targum  on 
Gen.  I  r  :  I,  says  that  the  Hebrew  wa3  the  primitive 
language  of  the  world.  Some  modern  Christian 
scholars  have  supported  this  view  for  the  following 
seasons  : — 

1.  That  the  proper  names  of  Adam  to  Babel  are 
derived  from  Hebrew  and  have  a  Hebrew  meaning. 

2.  The  fragments  from  Lamech  and* Noah  are 
certainly  Hebrew. 

3.  The  great  longevity  of  the  Patriarchs,  which 
was  such  that  Adam  was  contemporaneous  with 
Methusaleh,  and  he  with  Shem,  and  Shem  with 
Abraham.  Thus  Adam  is  joined  to  Abraham  by 
two  links  or  generations. 

4.  It  is  not  probable  that  the  pious  people  took 
part  at  Babel.  Some  say  that  the  race  of  Shem 
were  not  there,  and  that  hence  their  language  was 
not  confused  and  therefore  not  destroyed.  This 
reasoning,  however,  is  not  conclusive,  for  it  assumes 
that  these  proper  names  and  fragments  have  been 
preserved,  not  only  as  to  iheir  exact  significatioiu 
but  in  their  original  form,  and  have  neither  been 
translated  nor  explained  in  reference  to  Hebrew 
etymology.  To  all  this  we  say: — (i)  The  names 
which  are  undeniably  foreign  to  the  Hebrew  may 
often  admit  of  a  satisfactory  Hebrew  explanation  ; 
e.  g.,  in  Ex.  2  :  10,  "  Moses"  is  an  Egyptian  name, 
(meaning  ''  drawn  out  of  the  water,")  but  may  be 
explained    from    the    Hebrew.       So    also   Pharaoh, 


7 


104 

(meaning  "  ruler  ;")  Ham,  as  in  Ps.  105  :  23;  Behe- 
moth, (a  Coptic  word)  in  Job.  40  :  15,  means  "hip- 
popotamus." In  Gen.  41  :  43,  the  word  translated 
"  bow  the  knee"  (Shesh)  is  an  Egyptian  word,  yet 
may  be  explained  by  Hebrew  etymology.  But  it 
would  not  do  to  say  that  .the  Hebrew  was  the  lan- 
guage o{  Egypt.  (2)  Proper  names  are  often  trans- 
lated from  their  original  languages  into  another 
language  ;  e.  g..  On  (a  city)  is,  in  Jer.  43  :  13,  called 
Bethshemesh, .  the  "  house  of  the  sun,"  in  Greek 
Heliopolis.  So  also  No-Ammon  is  called  AtocTTto^t^, 
the  "  city  oi  Jupiter."  So  Erasmus,  Melancthon,  etc., 
are  Greek  translations  of  their  own  names  from 
their  native  languages.  (3)  Some  of  the  names 
before  the  confusion  at  Babel  cannot  be  thus  ex- 
plained ; — 'e.  g.,  Tubal-Cain,  Arphaxad.  (4)  Such 
antediluvian  words  may  have  been  appellatives  and 
Q~]^  not  proper  names  ; — e.  g.,  Adam  (meaning  "man,") 
"^■^      is  connected  with  the  ground  ;  nrDij^^^  the  ground  ; 

y\*\'Y[  Eve  is  ''life''  Abel  is  ''breath ;''  Cain  is  "possession" 

•^  "■  and  ''weapon :''  Noah  is  "  restT        "^  X'Jr- 
^y\i      We  need  not  conclude  from  these  that  the  Hebrew 
"'*  V     was  the  original  language  of  mankind.    No  language 
can  lay  claim  to  that  honor. 

Renan,  in  his  history  of  the  Semitic  language, 
says,  "since  more  than  a  thousand  years  B.  C,  the 
Shemitic  roots  have  suffered  no  decay  or  injury. 
We  are  dealing  with  a  language  of  steel,  and  not 
with  a  worm  eaten  one.  The  Shemiticlanguage  has 
preserved  to  us  traces  of  the  primitive  tongue."  He 
says  that  "the  grammatical  structure  savors  of  the 
infancy  of  the  human  intellect.  The  radicals  of  the 
modern  Arabic  correspond  with  the  Hebrew.  If  in 
3000  years  there  was  no  sensible  alteration,  can  we 
not  conclude  that  the  primitive  language  was  similar 
to  the  Hebrew  ?  "  It  is  not  impossible  that  this  may 
be  true. 


105 

Scientific  Philology  may  one  day  accord  to  the 
Hebrew  the  honor  of  being  the  original  language. 
The  Hebrew  leaves  evidence  of  being  the  language 
of  Palestine  because  their  word  for  H'^esl  was  Yam, 
which  is  the  same  as  their  word  for  sea.  "T3!J 

Some  have  supposed  that  they  were  idolaters, 
because  they  used  the  plural  wnhvi.  This  is  unfound- 
ed. It  is  simply  the  plu  ral_  of  majesty.  Abraham 
came  from  Ai^am  and  therefore  spoke  Aramaean. 
In  Deut.  26:  5,  Syrian  is  used  for  AramcBa7i.  In 
Gen.  31:  47.  the  members  of  Abraham's  family  still 
continued  to  speak  Aranicean.  "^ 

Is  the  Hebrew  language   throughout,  of^indistin-      d  jUM^^^^<rry^  - 
guishable  character  or  diversified  like  others  ? 

1.  The  differences  are  due  to  diversities  of  ''dia- 
lects!' 

2.  They  are  due  to  the  different  species  of  compo- 
sition. 

3.  Differences  also  arise  from  successive  periods  of 
time. 

We  will  consider  them  in  order. 

I.   Difference  due  to  Z^/V?/^(f/i-.         •  ^tAiJ^cx^^  _ 

Some  have  gone  to  a  great  length  in  dividing  up       yfc^-<i*-£^^< 
the  dialects  of  the  Hebrew.    A_recerU  German  writer      fV^>WT 
gives  three  dialects.     ( i )  That  of  Ephraim   on  the" 

North  ;  (2)  of  Judah  in  the  middle,  (3)  o{  Si  me  071  on 

the  South.     More  sober  critics  say  we  have  no  data^  ^  ur^Jk.^1  a 
for  this,  because  the  small  extent  of  Palestine  and    /5^-v.<u.c^  j^-^J^ 
the  frequent  assemblies  of  the  people  would  prevent     Uo  ^</IJ'^^cji.  /? 
the  formation  of  such  dialects.    There  were  undoubt-      ^ru^.^^ <yC-' . 
edly  provincialisms,  as  there  are  now  in   the  United         ,^^-^=- — 
States.*^  E.  o.,  in~  Judges   12:  6;   Neh;_L3_i24^^^  In 
Judges  18:    3,  the  Danites  are  said  to  hav^~KnowTr---^  Juh^k^  . 
the  voice  of  the  Levite  by  his  dialect.     This  not  so.    <:%>vuj^-f^  (n 
They  simply  recognized  it  as  the  voice  of  an  acquain-    MAXjH~l)^o-n!ax^ 
tance.  ^»-z^    o^jrf^  ^^ 


y^^^  v^r->i^t*^'^-A  ^^^    ^  /i^*,r7^«->«<'-«^'W-  0'-' 


106         . 

In  the  N.  T.,  (Matt.  26:  ']i)  we  read  thit  Galli- 
leans  could  be  distinq;uished  by  their  speech. 

2.  The  differences  in  composition  are  wider. 

The  lang.  of  poetry  and  pilose  differs  much  in  all 
languages.  Poetry  delights  in  rare  and  unprosaic 
and  bold  forms  of  speech.     E-  g->  (0  Rare  words:  — 

">n^,  word,  =  "ipj^  h^-dk  nSn 

Nu,  to  go  or  come,  =  nn5< 

u^'K,  man,  =  "^^a  m^ 

hk;;;,  to  do,  =  S;:3 

I'm,  to  plant,  =  hrw 

«b,  not,  =  S2 

n-onS::,  war,  =  3-)p 

2nT,  gold,  =  0^3 

(2.)  Words  used  in  a  different  sense  in  poetry. 
Attributives  often  substituted  for  nouns.      Ex.: 

ty?c^,  sun,  =  T\^T\,  hot. 

n-^;,  moun,  =  njnS,  white  or  pale. 

d'Stu  ijlozving)  used  poetically  for  streams. 

-»'3X  {mighty),        "  "  '•   God. 

(3.)  Pecu  1  ia r  grammatical  fornns  for  the  same  word. 

o'r'^^?  =  o'""^^-  God. 

D'p;  =  nin;,  days. 

D'jtj?  ^  niyj;,  years. 

q^<3;t  =  D'rpD;',  nations  (by  resolution   of  the   Dagh- 
esh- forte.) 
"ivvf.   l'?:  =  ^^n:,    will    go,  (taking   the    form    tjSh   in    the 
'    future.) 

p-p,  from,  -  -ii?  h^  or  S;:  =  -Sx  or  ^S;' 

The  suffix  ^'.  =  *D\        i;:  =  '-|;v        3  ^  "1^33        3  -  ^^3 

(4.)  Some  peculiar  endings  or  terminations. 

n  =  n  D^.  =  1"  D  =-  ID  on:.  =  id: 

|\  =  in:  or  -m  ^\  =  *p' 

(5.)  Peculiar  grammatical  constructions.  The 
demonstrative  r\\  (or  poetical  u)  used  for  the  relative 
•^i^tf.  The  relative  often  omitted,  also  the  article. 
Bold  ellipses. 


^  i-<rtd.    /L'^"-^   "f^-^o,   «V 


^^.-.H       J^^^A^ 


JUzc  . 


^/4^^ 


''-^' 


^^-CMU^^^ 


107 

Many  of  these  forms  are  called  Arabisms  or 
Aramaeisms  and  said  to  be  borrowed  from  the  Ara- 
maean^ But  this  is  not  so.  They  seem  to  belong 
to  that  common  stock  of  all  the  Semitic  tongrues  from 
which  the  Hebrew  and  Aramaean  and  the  Arabic  all 
came.  In  the  Hebrew  these  terms  passed  into  dis- 
use and  were  used  only  in  poetry,  while  they  were 
retained  in  the  Aramaean  or  Arabic. 

The  book  of  Isaiah  is  almost  all  poetry,  Daniel 
almost  all  prose.  The  Prophetic  style  occupies  an 
intermediate  place  between  poetry  and  prose.  In 
the  books  of  Moses  we  find  both  poetry  and  prose. 
In  Deut.  we  find  the (pj^opheti^c)  style.      (A^ajhyvZ.*^-^^ 

3.  Differences  arising  from  successive  periods  of 
time. 

The  Hebrew  lanoruai/e  underwent  a  crreat  chanore 
between  the  beeinnine  and  end  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment.  The  most  obvious  division  is  into  two  periods. 
The  point  of  separation  between  these  was  shortly 
before  the  Babylonian  exile. 

(i)  From  the  time  of  Moses  to  the  dme  of  Isaiah 
the  language  suffered  little  change.*^ In  the  writings 
of  the  later  prophets,  (Jeremiah,  Zephaniah,  etc.,) 
there  is  a  manifest  decline,  produced  by  a  large  in- 
flux of  foreign  words,^especially  Aramaean.  The 
Jews  were  brought  into  contact  with  these  nations. 
Esther,  Daniel,  Nehemiah,  and  Ezra,  exhibit  a  strik- 
ing contrast  in  purit>^though  Daniel  and  Ezra  have 
sections  in  Aramaean.  The  Book  of  Chronicles  was 
written  later  than  Kings,  and  hence  is  more  corrupt, 
Ezekiel,  written  during  the  Exile,  shows  the  greatest 
number  of  varieties  in  form  and  the  greatest  variety 
of  anomalies,'  which  exhibit  an  actual  deterioration 
of  the  languages.  In  the  prophets  subsequent  to 
the  exile,  Haggai,  Zechariah  and  Malachi,  the  lan- 
guage is  less  corrupt,  and  there  is  an  advance  to  the 
former  purity  and  correctness   of  style.     The  sta- 


L^-'J^^^i'^^-^t 


108 

tionary  character  of  the  language  during  the  former 
period  (there  being  no  change  for  800  years,)  is 
made  the  ground  of  an  objection  to  the  antiquity  of 
the  Pentateuch.     To  this  we  reply : 

(a)  That   it   is  the  character  of  all  of  the  Semitic 
languages  to  ,be  fixed  and  stationary.     All  the  cus- 
toms and  habits  and  even  the  names  of  places,  are 
ffC  y^-O-*^        unchanging,  in  some  cases  the  namesjDeing  the  same 
'  now  as  in  the  time  of  Abraham  and  Joshua.     The 

Syriac  and  Arabic  also  have  the  same  permanence. 
A^yJi^  '       Chmese  scholars  say  that  the  writings  of  Confucius 
(550  B.  C)  do  not  differ  in  language  from  the  best 
writers  of  the  present  time  in  China. 
th  '^n^'^^^  '         ('^)  ^\^^  circumstances^favored   this  preservation 
I  of  language,   a)  because  they  had  little  intercourse 

with  other  languages,  separation  being  required  by 
their  laws ;  and  (^)  the  Canaanites  also  spoke  the 
Semitic  language. 

(c)  The  books  of  Moses  containing  the  civil  and 
religious  code  served  to  fix  the  language,  as  the 
Koran  has  the  Arabic,  and  Luther's  Bible  the  Ger- 
man, and  the  English  Bible  the  English.  They  also 
furnished  a  model  of  waiting,  as  Home?'  did  to  the 
Greeks.  The  language  of  Moses  would  often  be 
better  fixed,  even  after  the  spoken  language  had 
itself  changed. 

(d)  The  Hebrew  was  not  wholly  stationary  during 
this  long  period.     There  are  some  changes;  e.g., 

/the  third  feminine  pronoun  x^n  in  the  Books  of  Moses 
is  changed  to  x'n  in  Isaiah ;  -i;'j  is  used  in  the  Pen- 
tateuch to  denote  either  a  boy  or  girl, — in  Isaiah  it 
was  used  with  the  feminine  ending  nn;».;  for  a  girl. 
The  Plural  is  used  for  both  always.  Some  words 
and  phrases  are  peculiar  to  the  Pentateuch  and 
never  occur  afterwards  ;  others  vanish  until  the 
later  writings  of  the  O.  T.  ;  others,  which  Moses 
used  in  prose,  occur  again  later  only  in  poetry.     In 


109 

1.  Sam.  9  :  9,  mention  is  made  of  a  change  in  a  word, 
viz.,  seei^  as  changed  to  prophet.     Some  say  that  in 
Exodus  6:  3,  God  revealed  a  new  name  of  Himself 
to  Moses.     This  was    not    a    new  name,  but   was  / 
meant  to  show  a  new  phase  of  his  character. 

(2.)  Many  new  words  and  phrases,  and  a  more 
frequent  use  of  vowel  letters,  i.  e.,  "  scriptio  plena',' 
as  distinguished  from  '' sci^iptio  defectaj'  appear  in 
the  later  books,  and  also  the  adoption  of  genuine 
Aramaisms. 

Examples  of  new  phrases :  hdSdo  with  the  plural 
construct  later  noS-o  ;  d'jsh  urfi,  bread  of  the  pres- 
ence, shew  bread,  is  in  later  books  rgi;'-:?!  onS  (from 
r>3"^;*p  a  row,  i]:^;;,  to  arrange).  God  of  Heaven,  is 
later  Jehovah  of  Hosts,  which  is  itself  later  than 
Moses. 

Thus  the  decay  of  the  Hebrew  is  not  always  dis- 
tinguishable ivom  poetic  license.  For  this  reason  the 
character  of  the  Hebrew  in  any  book  is  not  a  cri- 
terion of  its  date  or  ao^e. 

Did  the  written  Hebrew  differ  from  the  spoken  ? 
It  may  have  to  some  extent,  as  in  Eng.  The  latest 
books  of  the  O.  T.  represent  a  purer  style  than 
could  have  been  current  among  the  people  at  that 
time,  and  was  formed  from  a  careful  study  of  the 
ancient  models.  ^ 

When  did  the  Hebrew  cease  to  be  spoken?      1 . *^^^j^  ^r^*- 
The  Talmud  and  the  Jewish  grammarians  and  some     <^»''^^-'-«^^-*-<^ 
Christian   scholars  say    that    the   Hebrew  was^dis-     ■<Ua^Ky\^ 
placed  by  the  ArarncBan  at  the  time  of  the  Babylon- 
ish exile,  though  it  long  continued  to  be  known  by 
the   old  men  who  had  learned  it  in  Palestine,   and 
also  by  the    learned  men.     The  young  generation 
spoke  Aramaean  and  knew  nothing  of  the  Hebrew. 

2.  It  is  thought  by  some  modern  scholars  that  the 
Hebrew,  though  corrupted  by  the  exile,  continued 
to    be   the  language  for  400   years  after  the  exile. 


110 

that  Is,  until  the  Maccabees  and  Syrian  domination.^ 
These  advocates  are  influenced  mainly  by  the  hypo- 
thesis that  some  of  the  books  of  the  O.  T.  were 
written  during  this  period.  Neh.  13:  24  is  no  proof 
that  the  Hebrew  was  unchanged  as  a  spoken  lan- 
guage. Is.  36 :  II  does  not  prove  that  the  Jews 
still  s,^6ktt  Hebrew ;  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  does 
Neh.  8  :  8  prove  that  they  had  given  up  Hebrew 
and  adopted  Aramaean.  They  say  that  the  passage 
shows  that  the  Levites  translated  the  book  of  the 
law  ;  this  is  not  so,  but  our  version  is  correct,  where 
we  read  that  they  read  the  law  "  distinctly,"  with 
explanations.  And  a  captivity  of  only  70  years  was 
too  brief  a  time  for  them  to  give  up  their  own  lan- 
guage and  adopt  another,  especially  as  only  a  part 
of  the  people  were  carried  away,  and  the  remainder 
were  not  put  among  Aramaeans.  The  Prophets  too, 
in  the  later  books,  after  the  exile,  would  not  have 
used  a  language  unknown  to  the  people.  The 
deterioration  of  the  language4)egan  before  the  exile, 
though  it  was  accelerated  by  that  exile.  The  Chaldee 
was  familiar,  as  seen  from  Daniel  and  Ezra.T 

The  change  was  a  gradual  transformation.  Vv^e 
cannot  tell  the  exact  date  of  the  change  any  more 
than  we  can  tell  that  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  Into  Eng- 
lish, or  of  the  Latin  Into  Italic.  But  it  could  not 
have  been  long  after  the  exile. 


Character  of  the  Hebrew. 

There  are  no  adequate  data  for  estimating  or 
ascertaining  the  copiousness  of  the  Hebrew  lan- 
guage. Gesenlus  gives  5642  words  In  the  Hebrew 
Bible,  with  about  500  roots.  But  these  are  only 
those  found  In  the  O.  T.,  and  hence  are  not  the  en- 
tire vocabulary  of  the  language. 


^CCriu^     ^A—   Zo-au^^^- 


/t  X 


Ill 

Shultans,  living  in  the  last  century,  calculated  the 
number  of  the  combinations  of  the  letters  of  the 
alphabet  into  triliteral  roots,  finding  12000  of  them, 
and  to  each  of  these  he  assigned  30  derivates  ; 
hence  he  makes  360,000  words,  not  reckoning 
quadriliterals  and  their  derivatives. 

This  principle  is  false.  The  number  of  words  in 
any  language  does  not  depend  on  the  number  of 
roots,  nor  upon  the  number  of  possible  combina- 
tions. The  stock  of  words  will  not  go  beyond  the 
necessities  of  a  people.  Ideas  and  objects  unknown 
would  of  course  have  no  words.  Simple  agricul- 
tural peoples,  like  the  Hebrews,  knowing  little  of  the 
outside  world,  and  uniform  in  their  modes  of  life, 
would  not  have  a  very  extensive  circle  of  ideas,  and 
hence  of  words.  Yet  the  language  shows  an  affluence 
of  synonyms.  E.  g.,  there  were  eight  terms  for 
darkness,  seven  names  for  the  lion,  four  for  the  ox, 
eleven  for  the  different  kinds  of  rain.  These  and 
other  instances  show  a  great  richness  and  profuse- 
ness  of  terms  and  a  careful  observation  and  nicety 
of  distinction  between  objects  and  a  close  study  of 
nature,  etc.  This  quality  is  favored  by  the  parallel- 
isms of  their  poetry. 

The  Hebrew  is  richest  in  religious  words,  e.  g., 
there  are  fourteen  expressions  for  confidence  in  God, 
nine  iov  forgiveness  of  sins,  tvj^nty-^vQ  for  the  observ- 
ance of  the  Law. 

The  structure  of  the  Hebrew  language  is  such  as 
to  produce  an  economy  of  words  and  roots.  A 
small  number  of  each  do  a  larae  amount  of  service. 
The  paucity  of  adjectives  is  compensated  for  by  the 
distinctions  in  abstract  nouns.  The  different  species 
of  the  same  verb  express  different  ideas ;  e.  g., 
Come  and  bring  are  expressed  by  different  specu 
of  the  same  verb;  so  also  to  eat  and  to  feed ;  to 
learn  and  to  teach  ;  to  ^^  and  to  lead. 

i^^^  k^A^  cw-^^  yi^out   f^ruh 


112 

There  were  also  modifications  of  meaning  by  the 
construction  of  the  sentences,  e,  g.,  rx^")  to  see,  with 
different  forms  has  different  constructions,  and  with 
prepositions  can  mean  to  see,  look,  enjoy,  despise, 
live,  choose,  provide,  visit,  leai'n  from,  aim  at,  respect, 
care  for,  abide  for,  know,  appear,  show,  perceive. 
Nouns  from  the  same  root, — prophet,  vision,  mirror, 
form,  sight,  vidture  (i.  e.,  keen  sight.) 

Some  lost  roots  in  the  Hebrew  have  left  their 
traces,  but  can  now  only  be  explained  by  the  Arabic. 
The  great  number  of  aixa^  T^yo^eva  suggests  that  a 
great  number  of  words  have  been  lost.  The  Arabia: 
most  frequently  preserved  the  primitive  grammati- 
cal forms,  but  the  Hebrew  retained  the  primary 
meanings  of  words  the  longest.  The  Arabic  has  the 
mosXxerbalsimplicity,  Hebrew  next,  Aramseic  least. 
In  Hebrew  the  relics  of  some  independent*  species 
are  found,  which  in  the  other  two  languages  appear 
rarely,  and  as  imperfect  anomalous  forms ;  e.  g,, 
plural  endings,  paragogic  letters,  of  which  the  Arabic 
shows  the  formation  and  connection.  The  pr^imaix 
significations  of  words  are  retained  in  the  Hebrew, 

io  -  I  , 

when  in  the  cognate  languages  it  has  given  plice  to 
a  derivative  and  secondary  sense,  e.  g.,  hd  in  He- 
brew always  means  what,  though  sometimes  used  as 
a  negative ; — in  the  Arabic,  it  is  a  negative,  njiy  in 
Hebrew  means  to  untie  ;  in  Arabic  it  means  to  dwell, 
to  put  up  for  the  night,  (from  the  idea  of  untying  the 
beasts  of  burden.  x\\\t\  to  wander,  in  Hebrew  ;  in 
Arabic  and  Aramaeic  means  to  be  idolaters,  {i.  e.,  to 
wander  in  a  religious  sense.)  ijSri  =  to go'\v)  Hebrew; 
in  Arabic,  to  peinsh.  np^  in  Hebrew  means  to 
change ;  in  Arabic  and  Aramaeic  means  to  change 
the  understanding,  to  be  mad,  deranged.  -ipi<  to  say, 
in  Arabic  means  to  say  with  authority,  to  command 
(^English  i5;;^/r.)  -133  in  Hebrew  means  to  cover; 
in  Arabic,  to  cover  the  truth,  to  disbelieve.     Hence 


/V    ^^W^^  ^f^C.^/**y~^ 


113 

is  derived  the  name  of   the   Kaffir  (in    Africa.)   wlio 

does  not   beheve   the    Koran.     An  exception  is  the 

Hebrew  to   miss  the  mark,  to   .sv;/,  which    in    Arabic  ^  <3  TT 

means  the  former  only. 

Most  words  borrowed  from  the  S\TJac  and  other 
languao^es  are  onnected  with  idolatry.  The  word 
which  in  Syriac  means  to  worship,  (njo)  in  Hebrew 
means  to  worship  idols.  Syriac  to  supplicate,  [^^?2) 
in  Hebrevv  means  to  use  enchantment.  The  Syriac 
for  priests,  d-^od,  in  Hebrew  means  priests  of  idols. 

The  Hebrew  contains  a  v'we^'  few  words  not  of 
Shemitic  extraction.  In  the  Pentateuch;  (i)  there 
are  several  Egyptian  words,  especially  names  of  ob- 
jects, persons,  places,  e.  g.,  -^i^;  river  (always  referring 
to  the  Nile,)  ^nj<  bulrushes,  n::o  a  box,  (  the  ark  in 
which  Moses  was  put,)  hd'^^  an  ephah,  n;n£)  Pharaoh, 
^"^35S{  bend  the  knee.      (2)  In  the  later  books  there  are  ,^^  ^ Sa^ 

a  few  names  of  Indian  objects  ;  there  are  some  San-  -^ ^»»*-w^ 

scrit  words,  c.  g.^    ophir,  nard,   dellian,   aloes,  ivory,     S^ 

apes,  peacocks, — which  show  the  extent  of  country 

to  which  the    Phenician  navigators   had  penetrated. 

In  Esther  i  :  6,   the    word  for  cotton    or  linen  (ds'^d) 

was  a  Sanscrit  word.     (3)   Persian  words  were  in tro-     (^yxK    (<<*7f^//*w> 

duced  during  the  Persian  rule.      In  Ezra,  Nehemiah,   A^^Ci     i^^yUij^ 

Esther,  Daniel,  and  Chronicles;  e.  g.,  Satrap;  also    ^i. //jj;/^  /^./^ 

names  of  monarchs  and  coins,  as  daries  dram  (Ezra 

8:  27.)     Xerxes,   Cyrus,  Haman  ;  also  the  word  for 

crimson,* red  of  worms,  (coming  to   us  through   the 

Arabic.)     Pleasure    ground  0173,  paradise,  in    Cant. 

4:13.     (4)  There   are    a    few  names  of  musical  in- 

struments    in    Dan.  borrowed  from  the  Greek.     A    /^^    ^  1  -  "^ 

number  of  words  are  transferred  from  the   Hebrew     du*^  yU  ^Jjl  ■* 

or  Phenician  into  the  Greek  and  from  thence  into    -^L^,^  ,   -ip 

the  Western    languages,  (a)    by  Phenicians,    (b)  b)'     '    --  | 

Christians,  (c)    by    modern   Jews.      Such  words  are 

hyssop,    balsam,    copper,    ebony,   jasper,    alphabet, 

amen,  ephod,  hallelujah, cummin,  cinnamon,  sapphire, 


n-! 


f^- 


kX"" 


^' 


se;raph,  cherub,  caballa,  jubilee,  Sabbath.  From  the 
modern  Jews  we  have  Rabbi,  Sa/hedrim.  Targum, 
Mishna.  The  Hebrew  yielded  to  the  Aramaeic  after 
the  exile,  yet  both  were  used  and  studied  by  the 
more  learned.  The  Aramaeic  became  the  popular, 
and  the  Hebrew  the  learned  language.  The  Mishna, 
the  oldest  portion  of  the  Talmud,  is  in  corrupted 
Hebrew.  The  more  modern  portion  of  the  Talmud 
is  in  Aramaeic,  the  dialect  of  the  people.  From  the 
I  ith  Century  onward  there  is  a  decided  tendency  to 
return  to  the  Hebrew.  It  is  still  a  learned  lanoruao-e 
among  Jewish  scholars. 

Shape  t)F  the  Letters,  and  the  Origin  of  the 
Vowels  of  the  Hebrew  Language. 

All  the  Hebrew  manuscripts  which  we  possess 
are  written  in  the  present  square  character,  but  on 
Jewish  corns  supposed  to  belong  to  the  time  of  the 
Maccabees,  and  in  the  books  of  the  Samaritan's,  we 
find  a  round  character  similar  to  the  Phenician  and 
Samaritan- 

Is,  then,  the  present  square  character  the  original 
one  ? 

This  was  a  subject  of  dispute  in  the  17th  century 
between  the  Buxtorfs  and  Capellus.  Buxtorf,  a 
Professor  at  Basle,  together  with  his  son  and  suc- 
cessor, maintained  that  the  square  letters  were  the 
original  ones.  Capellus,  Processor  at  Somer,  first 
opposed  this  view.  The  Buxtorfs  assumed  that 
"  there  were  two  separate  characters  in  use,  one  the 
sacred  letter  found  in  the  Bible,  the  other,  the  secular 
letter  used  in  business  transactions.  This  latter  one 
is  what  was  found  on  the  coins.  Durme  the  exile 
at  Babylon,  the  Priests  kept  up  a  knowledge  of  the 
sacred  writing,  but  the  common  secular  dialect  fell 


^tr-^f^    )  ^ 


115 

into  disuse,  while  those  Jews  who  were  left  in  Pales- 
tine had  only  the  secular  character,  because  they 
had  neglected  the  reading  of  the  Law,  and  the 
Samaritans  borrowed  their  characters  from  them. 
When  Ezra  returned  to  Palestine,  he  restored  the  . 

old  sacred  character."     This  hypothesis ^they  sup-   ^^^  to^r-o-j^-^i^ 
ported —  ^  (U^^K^^  i^4^. 

1.  By  the  analogy  of  other  nations.  The  Egyp 
tians  had  a  threefold  character,  (a)  The  Hiero- 
glyphic; (b)  The  Hieratic,  or  sacred;  (c)  The  De- 
motic, or  popular.  The  Persians  used  different 
methods  of  writing  for  history,  poetry  and  letters. 
The  Turks  had  also  a  threefold  character. 

2.  PTom  Isaiah  8  ;  i.  They  say  that  the  phrase 
"  a  man's  pen  refers  to  the  secular,  ordinary,  or 
common  character. 

3.  From  a  passage  in   Irenaeus,  who  speaks  ol   a     y(M^/->v^^  /A^^rv- 
Sacerdotal  character  in  use  among  the  Hebrews.         iu^cl  //^/ri?.^^ 

The  verse  in  Isaiah  merely  means  to  write  plainly. 
Irenseus  is  really  no  authority  on  this  subject,  be- 
cause he  was  ignorant  of  the  Hebrew  language,  as 
other  mistakes  maSe  by  him  clearly  show.  The 
argument  from  analogy  would  illustrate  the  fact  if 
proved,  but  is  no  proof  in  itself.  This  hypothesis  is 
now  abandoned. 

•Gesenius  says  that  the  secular  character  was  that 
in  use  Fy  Judah  and  Israel  until  the  Babylonish 
Captivity,  and  then  it  was  preserved  by  the  ten 
tribes  and  the  Samaritans,  while  Judah  adopted  the 
character  of  their  Babylonian  captors,  /.  e.,  the 
square  character. 

This  would  account  for  the  early  traditions  and 
the  inscriptions  found  at  Palmyra.      But, 

(i)  This  does  not  account  for  the  use  of  the  coin 
letter  so  late  as  the  time  of  the  Maccabees. 

(2)  There  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  the  square 
letter  ever  w^as  used  at  Babylon. 


116 

It  is  now  settled  that  all  the  Semitic  families,  as 
to  their  alphabets,  are  related  to  the  old  Phenician, 
which  was  the  original  letter,  and  that  from  it  came 
that  Hebrew  character  which  was  used  on  the  coins 
at  the  time  of  the  Maccabees.  The  square  charac- 
ter succeeded  this  slowly  and  gradually  by  succes- 
sive changes  through  a  long  period  of  time.  The 
change  was  similar  to  the  change  in  Greek  from 
uncials  co  cursives.  The  connecting  links  between 
the  alphabets  we  can  trace  by  means  of  inscriptions 
at  Palmyra  and  in  Egypt.  When  the  change  took 
place  cannot  now  be  determined.  It  must  have  been 
before  the  3d  or  4th  Century,  A.  D. 

Quotations  from  Origen  and  Jerome  show  that 
the  Hebrew  character,  in  their  day,  was  the  same  as 
in  ours.  Jerome  says  that  the  word  nin'  was  read  by 
the  Greeks  as  if  it  were  nilll.  This  shows  that 
the  square  characters  were  in  use  at  that  time.  The 
change  probably  took  place  before  the  time  of 
Christ,  as,  in  Matt.  5:18,  ''jot^'  (i.  e.,  Yodh,)  would 
seem  to  indicate  ;  for  in  the  old  character  the  -  was 
as  large  as  any  of  the  letters,  but  in  the  square  char- 
acter it  is  the  smallest. 

If,  in  examining  the  Septuagint,  it  could  be  found 
that  there  had  been  errors  of  transcription,  such  as 
confounding  -»  and  i,  it  would  show  that  the  sqiuwe 
character  was  used  at  that  time.  No  satisfactory 
results,  however,  have  ever  been  obtained  from  this 
examination.  We  must  assume  that  the  change 
took  place  between  the  time  of  the  Maccabees  and 
the  time  of  Christ. 

This  question  has  often  been  mixed  up  with  other 
questions.  It  has  been  treated  as  if  it  affected  the 
Bible  and  its  text.  Capellus  said  that  the  Hebrew 
text  of  the  O.  T.  was  full  of  mistakes,  and  needed 
constant  revision.  The  Buxtorfs  held  extreme  views 
in  the  opposite  direction.     They  said  that  the  text 


aw%y*     cv^  <^>^    ^jv..^.^^^   Ci^*.*^' 


117 

of  the  Bible  had  letters  of  the  same  shajje  in  which 
it  was  given.  To  say  that  the  Samaritans  had  kept 
the  old  alphabet  and  that  the  Jews  lost  it,  seems  to 
be  admittinor  the  superiority  of  the  Samaritan  over 
the  Heb.  Bible.  The  form  of  the  letters,  however. 
does  not  affect  the  purity  of  the  tex t . 

II.  This  question  was  subsidiary-' to  anodier,  re-  i 
lating  to  //le  antiquity  and  authority  of  the  voiucls  I 
and  accents.  ^ 

The  Rabbins  in  the  middle  ages  held  that  the 
vowels  were  either  an  integral  part  of  the  text,  or 
that  they  w^ere  divinely  sanctioned  as  added  by  Ezra. 

In  I  6th  Cent.  Elias  Leviter  held  that  the  vowels 
were  added  afterwards  by  the  Jewish  grammarians, 
at  Tiberias,  The  elder  Buxtorf  replied,  trying  to 
show  that  the  vowels  were  not  made  by  gram- 
marians. Leviter's  arguments  found  favor  with 
Capellus,  who  wrote  them  out  and  strengthened 
them,  and  then  sent  the  MS.  to  the  elder  Buxtorf, 
who  commented  on  it  and  returned  it,  confessing 
the  difficulties  of  the  case,  and  advising  him  not  to 
publish  it.  It  was  printed,  however,  in  1624  and 
Buxtorf  was  expected  to  reply  to  it,  but  did  not  do 
so.  His  son,  however,  in  1648,  published  a  work 
which  was  (i)  a  refutation  of  Capellus,  and  (2)  a 
proof  of  the  antiquity  of  the  vowel-points. 

His  views  were  adopted  by  the  orthodox  party  in 
Europe  and  England.     It  was  even  made  an  article 
of   faith   in  one  of  the    Swiss  Confessions  of  Faith, 
that  the  vowels  and  points  of  the  Bible  were  inspired. 
John  Owen^attacked  Capellus,  and  thought  that  it     ^  ^^ 
would  impair  the  truth  of  the  Bible  to  believe  that 
such  an  important  matter  as  the  vowels  was  fixed  by 
unbelievers,  and  by  men  who  as  Jews  were  under 
a   curse,  and  were  the  murderers  of  Christ.     It  is  i 
now  admitted  that  the  vowels  are  notjincient.     We  ) 
may  infer  this. 


^ttt^^ 


118 

1.  Because  the  niinuteness  of  their  notation  im- 
pHes  that  the  Hebrew  was  not  a  Hving  tongue  when 
they  were  introduced. 

2.  From  the  analoirv  of  kindred  lancruaees.  The 
Syriac^and  Samaritan  have  no  vowel  points,  nor  did 
the  Phenicians  have  an\',  nor  were  an\  found  on  the 
coins  or  on  the  monuments.  The  Arabic  in  the 
Koran  has  a  few  vowels,  elsewhere  none, 

3.  Tradition  among  the  Rabbins,  that  the  vgwels 
were  handed  down  orally  until  the  time  ^' Ezra,  and 
that  he  reduced  them  to  writmg.  They  are  ascribed 
to  him  probably  in  order  that  they  may  have  the 
sanction  oi  inspiration. 

4.  The  Syn_aCTogue_RoJls,  which  are  greatly  es- 
teemed, have  no  vowels  ;  a  fact  hard  to  account  for, 
if  vowels  formed  an  original  part  of  the  text. 

I — uv-A^  5-   ^^^^  different  readings  of  KVi  and   K'thibh  all 

refer  to  the  consonants  and  not  to  the  vowels  And 
yet  the  vowels  are  much  more  open  to  dispute  and 
variation. 

6.  The  present  vowel  system  was  not  in  use^  at 
the  dme  of  the  Septuagint,  as  proved  by  its  transla- 
tion~of  some  woras  in  a  manner  consistent  with  the 
consonants,  but  not  with  the  vowels,  as  we  now  have 
them. 

JJ^ken  ivere  they  introduced?     We  notice 

(i.)  That  the  lewish  ^ramrriarians  from  the  be- 
ginning of  the  I  ith  century  had  the  points,  and  did 
not  know  but  that  they  had  always  existed.  A  table 
of  various  readings  made  in  1034  refers  to  the 
vowels  and  points  exclusively,  and  thus  we  know 
that  they  existed  at  that  time. 

(2.)  The  Septuagint  and  Josephus  do  not  appear 
to  have  them.  Origen,  in  his  Hexapla,  gives  a  pro- 
nunciation which  does  not  agree  with  the  vowel- 
points.  Jerome  was  probably  not  acquainted  with 
the  present  vowel   system.      By  vowels,  he  meant 


Itc  /^>zyl4  -.^7^**^  ^ 


^j\\urviLfcU(^    oji    2lJm 


ru/0 


110 

vowel  letters;  and  by  accent,  he  meant  vocal  utter- 
ance. It  is  doubtful  whether  the  falmitd  oi  the  5th 
century  recognizes  them.  The  Masora  does  con- 
tain the  names  of  nearly  all  the  vowels,  although  the 
K'ri  and  Kthibh  relate  to  the  consonants.  The' 
general  conclusion  is  that  the  points  were  introduced 
b\^ Jewish  grammarians  between  the  5th  and  loth 
centuries<^with  the  intention  of  preventing  all  am- 
biguity of  pronunciation  and  meaning. 

Gesenius  sets  the  time  to  be  between  the  6th  and 
8th  centuries.  This  would  bring  us  to  about  the 
time  when  the  x^rabic  and  Syriac  vowels  were  first 
used.  Some  now  began  to  give  up  all  authority  of 
the  points,  as  being  entirely  of  human  origin. 
Others  went  to  the  opposite  extreme.  Careful 
examination  gives  us  a  medium  ground.^ The  sig.ns 
are  Masoretic,  but  the  sounds  are  not.  There  was 
no  Rabbinical  trifling  with  the  text,  but  preserved  a 
rigid  accuracy  in  its  pronunciation,  besides  giving  r^ 
traditional  commentary  on  the  text.  By  careful  no-  ^r^^  v{^^  . 
tation  they  have  given  us  the  sounds  just  as  exact        ^  /. 

tradition   had  given  those  sounds   to  them.     They      "^^^^h 
had  good  facilities,  and  were  accurate  and  worthy 
of  our  trust.  <*/- 

History  of  the  Study  of  the  Hebrew.  It  may 
be  divided  into  two  periods,  i.  Among-  the  Jews. 
(a)  From  the  introduction  of  the  Masoretic  System 
to  the  loth  century,  (b)  From  the  introduction  of 
the  Grammatical  System  in  the  10th  century  to  the 
Reformation.      2.   Amo7ig  Christians. 

I.  Among  the  Jews.  Schools  were  established  in 
Jerusalem  as  early  as  the  time  of  Christ,  for  teach- 
ing the  Scriptures  and  Traditions.  Such  were  those 
of  Hillel,  (Gamaliel,)  and  Shamai.  After  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem,  there  were  schools  also  at 
Tiberias  and  Babylonia.  There  was  no  systematic 
or  scientific  study  of  the  language,  but  an  adherence 


120 

to  ancient  traditions.  The  very  letters  of  the  Bible 
were  reverenced.  Even  a  letter  which  happened  to 
be  written  smaller  or  larger  was  retained  in  the 
text.  Even  the  number  of  the  letters  was  known. 
To  these  scholars  we  owe  the  Masora,  which  are 
the  notes  and  the  vowels,  and  the  Talmud  and  their 
Targums  or  translations. 

11.  Among  Christians.  The  Fathers  of  the  Church, 
except  the  Syrian  Christians,  were  mostly  ignorant 
of  Hebrew,  but  Orjo^en  in  the  3d  century  and  Jerome 
in  the  4th  century  were  Hebrew  scholars.  In  the 
loth  century  the  schools^ere  transferred  to  Sp^n^ 
There,  under  Arabic  rule,  they  flourished  for  a  long 
period.  There  were  schools  in  Toledo,  Barcelona, 
Grenada,  and  thus,  stimulated  by  Arab  grammarians, 
Hebrew  was  studied  g-j^  am?  na  tic  ally  7\.x\d  scientifically . 
Grammars  and  Lexicons  were  written  which  still 
exist  in  MS.  in  European  libraries.  Especially  note- 
worthy among  these  scholars  were  Kimchi  and  his 
two  sons.  The  work  of  David,  the  younger  son, 
which  he  called  "  Perfecdon,''  was  that  used  by  the 
Reformers,  and  formed  the  basis  of  similar  works  till 
very  lately. 
/  From  the  time  of  Jerome  till  the  i6t!i,^-century, 
\  the  study  of  Hebrew  was  almost  entirely  neglected 
/  by  the  Christian  Church.  Charlemagne  tried  to 
revive  the  study  of  the  language,  and  the  Council  of 
Vienna,  131 1,  voted  annuities  for  professors  of  He- 
brew in  Vienna.  But  the  resolution  was  not  carried 
into  effect.  Raymond  Martini  studied  Hebrew  to  use 
it  against  the  Jews,  and  Nicholas  De  Lyra  studied  it 
to  facilitate  the  exposition  of  the  Old  Testament. 
The  Romish  Church  distrusted  the  spirit  of  the 
Reformers,  but  the  revival  of  letters  called  attention 
to  the  Hebrew  in  spite  of  this  opposition.  The  Rab- 
bins also  were  jealous  of  its  popularity,  and  would 
not  give  instruction  except  at  exorbitant  prices. 


i..    (?(U<JLt/^^ 


^y-^T^^c^^c^c^ 


Ca^^-^  *^^^ 


tyiOL^ft 


A-t-^fJ^-^C^      /^MiJ^4-^>^^^  '^-^^ 


<^Ux» 


'^'^^^     X<<rjX^ 


C^^4Ucn^ 


121 

The  first    Hebrew    Granuner  issued  by  a  Christ- 
ian was  made  bv  Conrad   PeHcan  in  i  so^.      He  was 


a  monk  at  Tubingen,  and  at  that  time  was  only  22 
years  old.  He  derived  most  of  his  knowledge  from 
a  Hebrew  Bible,  aided  by  a  Latin  translation. 

John  Reuchlin  was  really  the  father  of  Hebrew 
literature  andTearninor  in  the  Christian  Church.  He 
published  in  i  =^06  a  grammar  and  dictionary  called 
*'  Hebrew  Rudiments/'  closely  following  the  plan 
introduced  by  Kim.chi. 

Hebrew,  from  that  time  onward,  has  received 
marked  attention,  and  when  the  Church  declared  the 
Scriptures  in  the  original  the  only  rule  of  faith  and 
practice,  there  was  a  new  incentive  to  study  it. 

The  methods  of  study  underwent  several  changes. 

I.  The  Traditio7ia[^  School,  in  which  everything 
was  settled  by  tradition,  even  as  regarded  the  mean- 
ings of  words  and  the  construction  of  sentences,  etc. 
The  Buxtorfs  were  representatives  of  this  school.  It 
was  the  only  practical  method  in  early  times.  It  was 
partial  and  one  sided,  and  neglected  other  important 
means.  It  was  too  narrow  in  its  views,  seeking  for 
information  only  in  Jewish  Targums.  and  not  in  the 
Septuagint.  ^  rtAn  oS-Zr-^:^    e*^      ^r^^c-^— ^   -><--fe=- 

II.  The  Compcx ra tive_or  Dutch  School.  The  He- 
brew was  compared  with  the  cogmate  languag^^, 
Arabic  and  Syriac.  The  Grammars  and  Lexicons 
were  a  comparison  of  the  various  Shemitic  dialects. 
This  may  be  called  the  Dutch  School.  The  best 
early  Grammar  was  the  Hejitaglot  Grammar  and 
Lexicon  of  Edmund  Castey,  of  Cambridge,  in  He- 
brew, Persian,  Aramaic,   Arabic,  etc.      Schultans  of 

,  Leyden  applied  his  knowledge  of  Arabic  t6"eTuadate 
the  Hebrew.  He  was  the  best  representative  of  this 
school.  This  school  was  too  one-sided  on  the  other 
extreme.  No  regard  was  paid  to  the  Syriac,  nor  to 
Rabbinical  authority  and  tradition,  and  too  much  to 


122 

the  Arabic^  Hence  many  Imaginary  significations 
are  found  in  their  works. 

Ill  The  Idioniatic  School  rejected  all  externa] 
helps,  and  substituted  a  minute  examination  of  the 
text,  context,  and  parallel  passages  of  the  Scrijjtures 
tTiemselves.  But  it  also  was  partial.  It  said  all  tril- 
iteral  roots  were  originally  biliteral,  and  even  tried 
to  give  each  individual  letter  of  the  biliteral  a  distinct 
meaning,  from  the  form,  etc. 

This  method  led  to  a  more  accurate  study  of  the 
peculiarities  of  the  Hebrew,  but  was  not  on  the 
whole  a  good  method.  All  these  schools  gave  a 
foundation  for 

IV.  The  Comprehensive  School,  including  all  the 
former  methods.  The  modern  scholars  adopt  this 
school.  Geseniiis  is  its  best  representative.  His 
Lexicon,  however,  is  not  faultless.  There  are  a  few 
ctTtaJ  ^eyo(i6va  whose  meanings  are  not  known  ;  e.£'., 
the  names  of  some  of  the  clean  and  unclean  beasts 
in  Lev.  ii,  and  some  terms  used  in  Is.  3  18-23, 
articles  of  apparel.  These  may  hereafter  be  ex- 
.  plained.     They  are  not  important  words  however. 

/ol^St-^  — -"^ Eaklv  Veksions. 

There  are  fou?'  versions  of  the  O.  T.  which  are 
ancient  and  immediate.  By  an  immediate  version, 
we  mean  one  made  directly  from  the  original  and 
not  from  any  pre-existing  versions,  which  would  be 
a  mediate  version.  By  an  ancient  version,  in  a 
technical  sense,  is  meant  one  made  prior^  to  the 
Masorites.  To  be  of  any  critical  authority,  it  should 
be  both  ancient  and  immediate.  A  mediate  version 
may  be  authority  in  reference  to  that  from  which  it 
was  taken.     These  four  versions  are: 

1.  The  Greek  Septuagint.    [  ^  --, 

2.  "     Chaldee  Targums.    J 

3.  "     Syriac  Peshito. 

4.  "     Latin  Vulgate. 


Uc  ^    /^  AMfi^^    J^ca.^  ^/^y^/4r^^^ 


u^. 


,  ^  .    U_>c-^.  <r-v-< 


u    ^   ^  5^  ^ 


Zcxx^^^L  U^i^^L^.^i^/-^     f^     r^i^'-^:^-^>^„^.t^'^    ^<^c:r-^^^   z'^'^^^. 


O^CjO^       J— 


123 

Each  of  these  represents  the  traditions  of  a  par- 
ticular locaHty.  The  Septuagint  is  that  version  of 
the  text  as  held  by  the  Alexandrian  Jews.  The 
Targum — by  Jews  of  Palestine.  The  Syriac  Peshito 
— by  the  Oriental  Church.  The  Latin  Vulgate — by 
the  Western  Church.  Two  of  these,  the  Syriac 
Peshito  and  the  Vulgate,  include  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  therefore  have  a  critical  authority  in 
regard  to  it  also.  The  LXX.and  theTargumare  con- 
fined to  the  Old  Testament.  Besides  these,  there 
are  several  versions  immediate  in  the  N.  T.  and 
mediate  in  the  O.  T.,  and  hence  are  of  no  critical 
value  except  in  regard  to  the  N.  T. ;  c.g.^  the  Itala 
and  Philoxejiian  Syi'iac.  Both  of  these  made  from 
the  Greek  Bible,  and  hence  give  the  original  of  the 
N.  T.,  but  not  of  the  O.  T.  Other  versions  are 
mediate  in  both ;  e.  g.,  the  Anglo-Saxon,  made  from 
the  Latin.  This  would  also  be  called  a  modern 
version. 

I.  The  Septuagint. 

The  first  language  into  which  the  O.  T.  was  trans- 
lated was  the  Greek,  and  the  Septuagint  was  the 
first  translation.  There,  is  now  much  doubt  and 
uncertainty  as  to  its  origin.  According  to  a  letter 
purporting  to  have  been  written  by  Aristeas  to  his 
brother  Philocrates  (see  Smith's  Dictionary,  p.  2919, 
Vol.  IV.),  Ptolemy  Philadelphus  sent  Demetrius 
Phalereus  to  Jerusalem  to  obtain  a  copy  of  the 
Jewish  Law  for  his  library.  The  High  Priest  Eleazar 
chose  six  interpreters  from  each  tribe,  seventy-two 
in  all,  and  sent  them  with  a  copy  of  the  Law  in 
letters  of  gold.  These  men,  by  conference  and 
comparison,  translated  the  Bible.  Josephus  gives 
the  same  account. 

Other  writers  say  that  the  interpreters  were  shut 
up,  two  by  two,  in  cells,  and  made  out  separate 
copies,  and  that  all  the  versions  agreed  in  every  let- 


124 

ter,  when  compared     There  are  differences  of  opin- 

^•^^        ion  about  this  letter  of  Aristeas.     Some  regard  it  as 

'^■'^AA^  spurious;^  other  receive  it  in  part,  and  assume  that 

^^^-^^"^^  the  pentateuch  was  thus  prepared,  but  the  rest  was 

added  afterwards.      The   majority  of  critics   reject  it 

altoc^ether.       The  historical  and  internal  evidences 

are  against  it.      The  internal  evidence  of  the  LXX. 

shows  that  it  was  made  by  Alex^ndrjan    jews,  and 

not  by  the  Jews  of  Palestine,  and   that   it  was  not 

done  by  one_person   or  at^ne  time.      It  was  called 

forth   by  the   need  of  the    Greek-speaking  jews^of 

having  a  copy  for  their  own  use. 

The  Pentateuch  was  translated  first,  and  Daniel 
last,  judging  from  the  character  of  the  translation. 
Ptolemy  Philadelphus  began  to  reign  283  B.  C.  The 
whole  of  the  O.  T.  must  have  been  translated  before 
the  year  130  B.  C,  as  it  is  spoken  of  in  the  prologue 
to  the  Book  of  Sirach,  which  was  made  in  that  year. 
The  language  is  Hellenistic  Greek^  Different 
portions  of  the  version  are  of  different  character. 
The  Pentateuch  is  the  best,  but  Dariiel  was  so  incor- 
rect, that  after  the  time  of  Origen  it  was  laid  aside, 
and  another  by  Theodotian  was  substituted  for  it, 
and  this  is  the  one  we  have.  Ecclesiastes  is  slavishly 
I    c^^iju-  literal,  to  a  disregard  of  the  plainest  rules^    In  Jer- 

/TyVt^^A*-^  emiah,  verses  and   chapters  are  transposed  out   of 

^'^^^^^^  their    proper    order.    ^  The    translation,    in    places, 

shows  great  liberty  in  omission  and  insertion,  the 
most  remarkable  instance  being  the  systematic  var- 
iation and  alteration  in  the  chronology  of  chapters  6 
and  1 1  of  Genesis.  The  Samaritan  translation  also 
differs  from  the  Hebrew  chronology.  This  Greek 
Septuagint  version  was  held  in  the  highest  venera- 
tion in  Alexandria  and  Palestine.  Many  held  it  to 
be  inspired.  It  was  read  in  the  Synagogues  of  the 
Greek  Jews  in  Palestine,  and  was  used  by  Josephus, 
Philo,  the   Aposdes  and  the  Evangelists.  The  Chris- 


/^\^,f»^^..^..S^     tl^      i'l^/.^wT-/" ,  -'^ 


^  ^ 


/2^/_^.    ^    ^^y/^-~    '^' 


i^-1\UjU^         (2^t-<L>*-7 


CX^^f^J^'^'*— 


C-^'^"^ — c_  n^->-«=«--^ 


125 

tian  Fathers  received  it  with  the  same  veneration  as 
the  Hebrew  Bible.  As,  in  their  controversies,  the 
Christians  drew  their  arguments  from  the  LXX.,  the 
Jews  gradually  fell  back  on  the  Hebrew  original,  and 
hence  began  to  give  up  the  LXX.,  and  at  length 
des])ised  it. 

Mutual  recriminations  arose  between  the  Jews 
and  Christians,  as  to  who  had  corrupted  the  text.  A 
number  of  new  translations  arose  hum  either  party  ; 
e.  £\,  Aquila,  Theodotian,  and  Symmachus.  These 
versions  did  not  attain  to  ecclesiastical  sanction  or 
general  use,  and  hence  are  only  preserved  in  a  frag- 
mentary state. 

Acjuila,  thought  by  some  to  be  the  same  as  On- 
kelos,  a  Jewish  proselyte  of  Sinope  in  Pontus,  during 
the  second  century.  His  version  was  slavishly  lit- 
_eral,  even  to  the  particles;  e.  £,,avv  is  often  inserted 
(as  in  Gen.  i.  i)  where  the  preposition  really  belongs 
to  the  verb.  The  idiom  of  the  Greek  is  violated  in 
order  to»^ive  an  exact  rendering. 

Theodotian,  an  Ephesian  of  the  second  century. 
His  translation  was  really  a  revision  of  the  LXX. 
His  translation  ot  Daniel  is  used  in  place  of  the 
LXX.'s  translation  of  that  book,  which  was  very 
faulty. 

Symmachus.  an  P^bionite,  translated  with  great 
freedom,  elegance  and  purity.  (See  Smith's  Dic- 
tionary, page  3379.) 

In  the  course  of  repeated  transcriptions,  the  text 
of  the  LXX.  has  suffered  greatly,  until  Origen  com- 
plained that  every  manuscript  contained  a  distinct 
text.  To  remedy  this,  and  to  furnish  aid  to  Chris- 
tians in  controversy,  Origen  undertook  the  labor  ot 
removing  the  discrepancies  by  comparing  the  best 
MSS.,and  pointing  out  their  agreement^with  the  ^  ^^^^  ^ 
original  Hebrew  arid  with  other  Greek  versions. 


This  work  was  called  the  Hexaple.  He  spent 
twenty  years  on  it.  It  was  so  called  because  it  had 
six  parallel  columns.  The  first  column  contained 
the  Hebrew  text  in  Hebrew  characters  ;  the  second, 
the  Hebrew  text  in  Greek  characters,  so  as  to  be 
pronounced  more  readily  ;  the  third  contained  the 
version  o^  Aquila ;  the  fourth,  the  version  of  Syni- 
macJius  ;  the  fifth,  that  of  Theodotion  ;  and  the  sixth, 
the  Septuagint  text.  Besides  these,  there  were  two 
or  three  additional  columns  for  different /<^r//^/e'^r- 
sions.  These  supplementary  versions  are  only  known 
from  their  connection  with  this  Hexapla,  and  a  few^ 
citations  from  them.  Their  authors  are  for  the  most 
part  unkown.  They  are  called  Ouinta,  Sexta,  and 
Septima,  from  their  respective  places  in  the  Hexapla. 
The  author  of  the  Sexta  was  probably  a  Christian, 
for  in  Habakkuk  3:18,  instead  of  the  phrase  "  thine 
anointed,"  he  substitutes  "Jesus,  thy  Christ." 
^^^  The  Hexapla  was  chiefly  exegetical  and  polemi- 
vi^L^  /m*^*^  cal./^The  purpose  was  not  so  much  to  bring  back 
c^yj^  ^'^'^''^  the  Septuagint  to  its  primitive  condition  as  to  ade- 
^^  quately  represent  the  original   Hebrew.     The  plan 

of  Origen  was,  when  any  words  occurred  in  the  He- 
brew which  were  not  in  the  LXX.,  to  insert  theni 
from  one  of  the  other  versions,  generally  from  The- 
odotion s,  and  these  were  indicated  by  an  asterisk. 
If,  on  the  other  hand,  there  were  any  words  in  the 
LXX.  which  were  not  found  in  the  Hebrew,  he  pre- 
fixed an  obelisk  to  them  to  indicate  the  fact. 

In  addition  to  the  Hexapla  of  Origen,  mention  is 
made  by  early  writers  of  a  Tetrapla  and  O  eta  pi  a.  It 
is  not  agreed  whether  these"  are  distmct  works  or 
another  name  for  the  Hexapla.  The  Tetrapla  may 
have  been  so  called  (i)  as  containing  \\\^  four  prin- 
cipal versions  of  the  Hexapla,  or  (2)  as  being  a  sep- 
arate publication  of  those  four  versions  by  themselves 
without  the  original. 


0A^' 


X^^tr-rr 


yf~t>         /C*-*^ 


/^  fi'Hu^    -    rifA^-     /^Z^     .ii-^^l^     ^6-    ^.^^      >4      >^^-^-^*^*2^ 


127 

This  work  was  too  cumbrous  for  ,£^eneral  use, 
and  probably  was  never  completely  transcribed.  It 
.  was  used  chiefly  for  comparison  or  for  makinjj^  ex- 
tracts. After  the  death  of  Origen.  it  was  preserved 
at  Caesarea,  and  was  probably  destroyed  at  the  sack 
of  the  Saracens.  Fragments  of  it  have  been  collected 
and  published  at  various  times.-    ^ov^,    uw     ■Uc  /Os-«^  — 

These  labors  of  Origen  indirectly  tended  to  in- 
crease the  variations,  for  transcribers  often  neglected 
his  marks  of  variation  and  so  confounded  the  ver- 
sions. 

Lucian  of  Antioch  and  Hesychjus  of  Egypt  tried 
to  correct  the  LXX.,  but  alT  attempts  to  find  out 
their  readings  have  been  in  vain.  All  w^e  know  is 
that  their  labors  did  not  give  us  a  uniform  text,  for 
Jerome  still  complained  of  a  great  diversity  of  texts 
in  his  day.  . 

The   MSS.  of  to  day  are  not  uniform.     A  great^/>^  ' 
number  of  MSS.    of  the   LXX.  in   the   libraries  of 
Europe   have   been   examined.      The  principal  ones 
are  the  Codex  Alexandrinus  in  the  British  Museum,    r\    \ 
the  Codex  Y^ticanus  in  the  Vatican  Library  at  Rome,     fj    \ 
and   the   C^dex   Sinaiticus   at  St.  Petersburg.       l  he       \J^  \. 
first  portion  of  the   LXX.   printed  was  the    Psaker, 
two  editions  of  which  appeared   Before  the  entire  O. 
T.  was   printed   in   Greek.  1 48^-jj^.     The  Greek 
Old  and  New^   Testaments  were  first  printed  in   the 
Complutensian  Polyolot,  in    1522^     During  the  delay 
in  issumg  this  edition,  the  Aldme,  from  Aldus  Minu- 
tius,  appeared  in  15 18.      Both  claimed   to  have  fol- 
lowed ancient  MSS.  ~  ^5.....^-tk_:r   ^-^^  ^^^^i-^-^  .^^n^<^^  ^ 
^      A  large  number  of  mediate  versions  were  made 
from  the  LXX.,  the  early  Fathers  being  familiar  with 
Greek  and  not  with  Hebrew,  most  commonly  trans- 
lating from  the  Greek.      The  oldest  Latin  version  is 
the  /^a/a.     The  Syro-Hexaplaric  of  the  seventh  cen- 
tury   follows   the    text  of  Origen's   Hexapla.       The 


128 

Ethiopic  version  of  the  fourth  century,  also  severa 
Egyptian  versions  in  the  Coptic  language,  in  the 
third  and  fourth  centuries,  the  Armenian  in  the  early 
part  of  the  fifth  century,  the  Georgic  in  the  sixth 
century,  the  Slavonic  in  the  ninth,  and  several  A^^a- 
bic  and  one  valuable  Gothic  version  by  Bishop  Ulfi- 
las,  in  the  fourth  century,  of  which  the  O.  T.  has 
perished,  and  only  a  portion  of  the  N.  T.  exists. 

The  Critical  Value  of  the  LXX.  is  variously 
estimated  ;  some  giving  it  no  weight  whatever,  and 
others  placing  it  above  the  Masoretic  Hebrew. 
Morinus  affirms  the  superiority  of  the  LXX.  and  so 
also  does  Capellus,  who  tried  to  show  that  in  many 
instances  the  readings  of  the  LXX.  were  preferable 
to  the  Hebrew.  This  was  regarded  as  against  the 
authority  of  the  Hebrew.  Some  modern  critics  also 
prefer  the  LXX.  The  majority,  however,  while  val- 
uing it  greatly,  affirm  that  the  Masoretic  text  is  the 
best  and  not  to  be  corrected  by  the  LXX.    / 

II.   Chaldee  Targums. 

These  ancient  versions  or  paraphrases  are  called 
c^j^'^y^joJ'-^^^  Targums  from  a  Chaldee  root  meaning  to  explain, 
or  translate.  1  he  word  Dragoman,  still  used  in  the 
East,  is  derived  from  the  same  root.  In  Ezra  4  :  7, 
the  word  is  translated  ''interpret!'  These  Targums 
are  paraphrases  and  not  exact  versions.  ;,The  Jewish 
account  of  them  is,  that  when  the  Chaldee  became 
the  language  of  the  people,  and  the  Hebrew  was  no 
longer  intelligible,  each  synagogue  appointed  an  in- 
terpreter, as  well  as  a  reader,  who  should  translate 
into  Chaldee  the  Scriptures  as  read.  For  the  sake 
of  greater  certainty  and  accuracy  these  extempor- 
aneous translations  were  superseded  by  written  ver- 
sions, called  Targums.  They  are  distinct  works  by 
various  authors  and  at  different  times,  each  contain- 
ing one  or  more  books  of  the  O.  T.  They  are  var- 
iously reckoned. 


(c^ 


/  y---  -  -  ■^■'- 


,fc. 


^.._..^,        ^^/^yi-^^ 


7  ^-♦-^   <1    .'      '-'*'^--'-^ 

jU>..<w^?   lA-     fbli>->^ 


fMi 


1-29 

The  are  eleven  principal  ones.  vi/..  three  on  the' 
Pentateuch,  Onkelos,  PseudoJonatlian^AXXiX  \\\^yeru- 
salem ;  two  on  the  Prophets,  Jonathan  Ben-Uzzie/, 
and  the  Jerusalem ;  one  on  the  Hafrioij^rapha  by  ) 
Joseph  the  Blind  containincr  Job,  Psalms,  and  Pro- 
verbs ;  07ie  on  the  hve  small  books  called  Aleoilloth. 
viz.,  Canticles,  Ruth,  Lamentations.  Esther,  Eccle- 
siastes  ;  three  on  Esther  ;  dne  on  /.  and  //.  Chron- 
icles. 

The    most   ancient   and   valuable  is    that    on   the 
Pentateuch,  by  Onkelos,  and   that  on   the   Prophets,  ' 
by    Jonathan    Ben-Uzziel.       These    two    are  distin 
ouished    from    all    the    rest    by   the   purity    of   their 
Chaldee,  which  approaches  that  ol"  Daniel  and  Plzra. 
They  are    free    from  the  legends  of   the   later  Tar- 
gums,  and    from  arbitrary  additions,  although    )on- 
athan  followed  the  original  less  closely  than  Onkelos. 
These    two     are     highly     esteemed    by    the     Jews.  i 
Onkelos  refers  Gen.  49:    10  and   Num.    24:  17   to  ( 
the    Messiah;     Jonathan    refers    Isaiah    53^ to    the 
Messiah;  according  to  Jewish   tradition,   they  were 
both    pupils    of    Hillel,   a  distinguished    teacher  of 
Jerusalem,  who   died    60    B.  C.      The  accounts   are 
obscure,   Onkelos   being  by  some  confounded  with 
Aqulla. 

The  Targum  of  Pseudo-Jonathan  on  the  Penta- 
teuch was  so  called  because  it  was  erroneously 
ascribed  to  the  Jonathan  above  mentioned,  whereas 
its  barbarous  Chaldee  and  historical  allusions  assign 
it  to  the  seventh  century. 

The  Jerusalem  Targum  is  so  called  either  from 
the  place  where  it  was  made,  or  from  the  dialect  in 
which  it  was  written.  It  is  not  complete.  ^  It  fre- 
quently corresponds  with  the  Pseudo- Jonathan,  it 
is  doubtful  whether  it  is  original,  or  a  compilation 
from  other  Targums. 


130 

The  remainder  of  the  Tar^ums  are  of  compara- 
tively modern  date,  written  in  wretched  Chaldee, 
and  utterly  worthless  for  purposes  of  criticism^ 
There  are  nojargums  on  Daniel,  Ezra,  and  Nehe- 
miah.  The  Talmud  says  that  Daniel  reveals  the 
exact  time  of  the  Messiah's  advent,  and  therefore 
should  not  be  made  known  to  the  people.  The  most 
probable  reason  was  that  these  books  were  written 
in  inspired  Chaldee,  and  they  were  unwilling  to 
mingle  with  it  their  uninspired  Chaldee. 

III.  The  Syriac  Version. 

This  was  likewise  written  in  the  Aramaic  toni^aie. 
The  Peshito,  or  Old  Syriac.  It  was  called  Peshito, 
or  "  Simple''  (i,)  either  because  of  its  literal  charac- 
ter as  a  translation,  or  (2,)  because  of  its  plain,  una- 
dorned, and  simple  style,  or  (3,)  because  it  clings  to 
the  literal  interpretation,  as  opposed  to  the  allegor- 
ical. It  is  evidently  the  work  of  a  Christian  trans- 
lator, perhaps  a  converted  Jew,  inasmuch  as  this  was 
made  directly  from  the  Hebrg-W.  and  with  great 
accuracy.  Most  of  the  ancient  versions^are  made 
from  the  LXX.  The  age  of  this  old  Syriac"  version 
is  disputed,  and  its  origin  obscure.  It  is  the  basis  of 
the  Christian  literature  of  the  old  Syrian  church.  It 
was  known  in  the  fourth  century,  for  Ephraim  Syrus, 
who  died  A.  D.  378,  makes  it  the  basis  of  his  com- 
mentary, and  says  that  it  was  in  common  use  in  the 
Syrian  church.  It  has  been  ascribed  to  the  third, 
second,  and  even  to  the  first  century,  prepared  dur- 
ing the  lifetime  of  the  Apostles  themselves.  It  is 
urged  in  favor  of  its  age  that  it  was  generally  received 
in  the  time  of  Ephraim  Syrus,  and  that  many  words 
and  phrases  were  at  that  time  obscure,  and  besides, 
the  early  Syrian  church  would  require  such  a  version. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  is  not  supposable  that  it  could 
have  existed  more  than  a  century  before  any  other 
Christian  writings  appeared  in  that  language.     This 


u-t^^^^^U-fr-^-— ^ 


k^^ 


131 

originally  contained  only  the  Canonical  books.     The  i 
Apocryphal  books  were  afterwards  added^.    It  con-  I 
tinned  to  be    the  received  translation  amontr  them 
until  the  controversy  between  the  Monophysites  and 
the  Nestorians  ^ave  rise  to  another. 

Paul,   Bishop  of  Tela,  made  the  Syro  Hexaplaric  \ 
version  from  the  Septuagint  of  Origen's   Hexapla,  ' 
early  in  the  seventh  century;   English  translation  of 
it  by  Dr.  Murdoch  of  New  Haven. 

IV.   LaTiN  Versions. 

From  a  statement  made  by  Augustine,  there 
must  have  been  several  Latin  versions.  He  says  that 
those  who  translated  into  Greek  from  the  Hebrew 
could  be  numbered,  but  the  Latin  translators  could  in 
no  manner  be  counted.  He  speaks  of  one  of  them 
under  the  name  of  the  //a/a.  To  this  he  gives  prefer- 
ence on  account  of  its  superior  accuracy  and  perspic- 
uity. All  these  Latin  versions  were  made,  not  from 
the  Hebrew,  but  from  the  Greek, — from  the  LXX.  in 
the  Old  Testament,  and  from  the  original  Greek  in 
the  New.  This  variety  of  translations  produced 
such  confusion  and  so  many  discrepancies,  that  it 
was  complained  that  there  were  almost  as  man\ 
different  texts  as  there  were  MSS. 

Repeated  solicitations  were  accordingly  made  ot 
Jerome,  a  monk  of  Palestine,  the  most  learned  man 
of  his  time,  equally  skilled  in  Hebrew,  Greek,  and 
Latin,  that  he  should  undertake  the  revision  and  I 
correction  of  the  Latin  versions.  In  382  or  383 
A.  D.,  at  the  urgent  request  of  Damasus,  Bishop  of 
Rome,  he  began  a  hasty  revision  of  the  Gospels, 
then  proceeded  to  the  r^sl  of  the  N.  T.,  and  then  ^^^^^^/l  TVI^ 
passed  to  the  Psalms,/^nd^ reviewed  them  afterward  ^ 

more  carefully.  The  first  of  these  two  revisions  ot 
the  Psalms  by  Jerome  was  adopted  at  Rome  and 
hence  was  called  the  Roman  Psalter.  The  second 
was  adopted  in  Gaul  and  hence  was  called  the  irallic 


132 


J' 


Psalter.     Jerome,  after 


over  many  books  of 


K^n 


the  O.  T.^hen  resolved  upon  a  new  and  independ- 
ent version  from  the  original  Hebrew^.  He  ob- 
tained aT  considerable  expense  the  assistance  of 
native  Jews,  and  made  use  also  of  pre-existing 
Greek  versions.  Such  was  the  veneration  for  the 
LXX.  that  every  departure  from  it  was  regarded  as 
a  deviation  from  the  word  of  God  and  offensive  to 
Him.  Even  Augustine  begged  him  to  desist. 
Jerome  persevered,  nevertheless,  but  kept  as  closely 
to  the  LXX.  as  possible,  sometimes  against  his  better 
judgment.  He  began  in  385,  but  the  work  was  not 
completed  and  published  until  405.  Some  parts 
were  hastily  prepared.  He  speaks  of  translating  a 
thousand  verses  in  one  day  and  says  that  he  trans- 
lated Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  and  Canticles,  in  three 
days. 

This  translation  is  one  of  the  best  preserved  to 
us  from  antiquity.  It  was  long  in  coming  into  gene- 
ral use.  The  old  Itala  continued  to  be  used  in 
connection  with  it  until  about  the  beginning  of  the 
seventh  century,  when  all  the  Western  Church  ac- 
cepted it,  but  retained  the  old  version  of  the  Psalter^ 

The  modern  Vulgate  consists  of  the  Apocrypha 
from  the  Itala,  the  Psalter  of  the  Itala  corrected  by 
Jerome,  and  the  rest  is  Jerome's  version.  The  Itala 
and  Vulgate  have  been  corrected  by  each  other,  and 
hence  both  have  become  corrupted.  Repeated 
attempts  have  been  made  by  later  scholars  to  cor- 
rect the  text  of  the  Latin  Bible.  The  learned  Alcuin 
in  the  ninth  century,  under  the  direction  of  Charle- 
magne, undertook  the  restoration  of  the  true  text. 
Also  Lanfranc,  archbishop  of  Canterbury  in  eleventh 
century  and  Cardinal  Michaelis  of  the  twelfth 
century.  There  were  several  works  in  the  twelfth 
and  thirteenth  centuries  called  the  "  Correctoria 
Biblica"  or*  Epanorthica/'  containing    also   different 


c^-j-  €^   ^-la-  fyptJ^^  C^.cMy'j  ^"^ 


183 

readings,  especially    the    Sorbonne  Edition  and  that 

of  Hugo  St.  Clair^x^  U:^  Sw^e/trt...r-«57    t^  "f^    ^  n^  ^07>^^^<^, 

Great  importance  was  given  to  mis  Latin  version 
by  a  decision  of  the  Council ^f_Txent.  On  the  8th 
of  April,  1546.  it  was  decreed  that  the  Vj^hrate, 
should  be  held  as  authentic  in  public  reading,  preach- 
ing and  exposition,  and  that  no  one  should  dare  or 
presume  to  reject  it  on  any  pretense  whatever. 
This  decree  accordingly  contained  an  order  for  the 
printing  of  an  accurate  edition.  A  standard  edition 
was  published  in  1590  under  the  direction  of  Pope 
Sixtus  v.,  called  tHeSixtine  edition.  This  was  de- 
clared to  be  the  one  pronounced  authentic  by  the 
Council  of  Trent,  and  the  printing  of  aTny  other  copy 
different  from  this  was  forbidden  under  penalty  of 
excommunication.  Errors  were  immediately  dis- 
covered in  it,  however,  and  only  two  years  after. 
Clernent  VIjI.  published  a  new  edition  diflering; 
fronTTTie  other  in  some  thousands  of  places,  and 
this  last  is  now  the  standard  edition  of  the  Vulgate. 
This  action  of  the  Popes  has  always  been  a  sore 
point  with  those  who  hold  the  doctrine  of  the  Papal 
Infallibility. 

Hebrew  Manuscripts. 

The  MSS.  of  the  original  in  the  N.  T.  are  more 
numerous  and  older  than  of  the  O.  T.,  but  this  is 
compensated  for  by  the  fact  that  in  the  MSS.  of  O. 
T.  there  is  greater  care  and  accuracy  in  transcrip- 
tion.    The  variations  are  few  and  unimportant. 

The  existing  Hebrew  MSS.  consist  of  ^z£^^  classes  : 
— I.  Those  for  the  use  of  the  Synagogue  ;  2.  Those 
used  by  private  persons.  Of  the  latter  there  are 
two  classes: — (a)  Those  written  in  the  square  letter, 
and  (b)  those  written  in  the  abbreviated  Rabbhiica/ 
letter  or  running  hand. 


134 

I.  The  Synagogue  MSS.  These  are  the  most 
valuable,  and  contain  those  portions  of  the  O.  T. 
which  were  selected  for  reading  in  the  Synagogues  ; 
/.  e.,  the  Law  and  the  Prophets. 
X  (a)  The  Law  was  on  one  MS.  The  lessons 
from  the  Law  were  read  in  course,  and  were  called 
Parashoth. 

(b)  The  Prophets  were  not  read  in  course,  but 
from  lessons,  and  these  were  written  on  separate 
iMSS.,  called  Hapkthei^oth, ^nd  were  numbered  to  cor- 
respond to  the  passages  of  the  Pentateuch  to  be  read 
on  the  same  Sabbath.  The  tradition  is  that  the  les- 
sons were  originally  only  to  be  read  from  the  Law, 
but  when  Antiochus  Epiphanes  forbade  the  reading 
of  the  Law  in  the  Synagogue,  lessons  were  selected 
from  the  Prophets  to  evade  the  requirement  of  the 
king.  There  were  separate  rolls  for  the  five  smaller 
books,  i,  e.,  the  Megilloth,  viz.,  Esther,  Ecclesiastes, 
Canticles,  Ruth,  and  Lamentations.  Esther  was  read 
\  at  the  feast  of  Purini.  These  MSS.  or  rolls  were 
^  prepared  with  the  greatest  care,  according  to  rules 
given  in  the  T'almud,  which  were  superstitiously  mi- 
nute?'-^They  m.ust  be  written  on  parchment  prepared 
from  the  skin  of  a  clean  anirnal.  The  text  was  to  be 
the  square  character,  written  in  columns,  without 
vowels  or  points,  and  to  be  written  in  black  ink. 
All  large  and  small  letters  were  to  be  carefully 
noted.  The  copyist  must  look  at  each  word  in  the 
original  before  transcribing  it.  The  copy  must  be 
corrected  within  thirty  days,  and  if  four  errors  were 
discovered  on  one  skin,  that  MS.  must  be  rejected. 

These  MSS.  are  very  valuable,  and  are  highly 
prized.  Very  few  of  them  are  in  the  hands  of  Chris- 
tians, because  the  Jews  generally  burned  them  when 
they  became  old,  lest  they  should  be  polluted  by  the 
touch  of  a  Christian. 


*^ 


14^. 


i^^j.^^^    azu^    A^-    ^^^^^  ^' 


^x.^^-'^^-*<«^ 


Tu^iL^^     */      f'-'^ 


^A.-^^^—    '^"'- 


^.^ 


135 

11.  Private  MSS.  These  are  rarely  complete. 
They  oenerally  contain  only  parts  of  the  O.  T. 
Sometime  are  written  in  rolls,  but  generally  bound 
in  books  of  various  sizes. 

(a)  Those  which  were  written  in  the  square  char- 
acter are  most  valuable,  and  contain^  the  points  and 
vowejs.     The  letters  were  written   first,  the   points 

and    vowels   being  added  afterwards^.    One    wrote      ^^^  urdt    ^ 
the  consonants,  another    the  vowels  and  the  K^ri.     ^^6  ^^^ 
Another  corrected  it.      Another  added  the  Masbra      ^T^ 
and  Scholia.      Thev  are   nearly  all   written  in   black 
ink,  with  ornamented  words  or  letters  in  the  opening 
paragraphs.     The  prose  was  written  in  columns,  and 
the  poetry  in  clauses.      Sometimes  the  Hebrew  text 
was  accompanied  by  translations  in  Chaldee  or  Ara 
bic^   The  upper  and  lower  margins  contain  the  Great 
Masora  or^traditions  as  to  the  text ;   the  outer  mar- 
gin the  scholia  or  some  y?<2/^<5/;/?V^/ commentary^  the 
inner  margin  the  K'ri  and  Little   Masora.     Some- 
times the  material  was  parchment,  but  oftener  linen 
or  cotton  paper. 

(b)  The   Private   MSS.   in   the   Rabbimcal  charac 
ter  are  mostly  on  paper,  without  pomts,  accents,  or 
Masora,  and  with  many  abbreviations. 

Those  MSS.  designed  for  the  use  of  the  Syna- 
go^es  are*TEe  most  important.  The  Private  MSS. 
in  the  square  characters  are  next  in  value,  and  the 
Private  MSS.  in  the  Rabbinical  character  are  least 
ii^portant.<:  ^  ^-<>.-/^— ^-^^  >--^  -^-^^^" 
/The  determination  of  the  age  of  Hebrew  MSS. 
\k  very  difficult,  especially  if  there  be  no  date  or  in- 
scription. A  criterion  available  in  Greek  or  Latin  ^  u^c^titv^ 
MSS.,  drawn  from  the  shape  of  the  lettersjs  not 
available  here,  because  the  square  letter  is  the  same 
in  all  existing  MSS.  Some  MSS.  have  subscriptions 
givmg  the  date,  but  some  of  these  are  found  to  be 
fraudulent    and    are    added   to  increase   the    value. 


^ 


0 


136 


'-^7*^ 


IM 


/^-^' 


There  is  great  difficulty  in   interpretino-  these  sub- 
scriptions even  when  the  date  is  given,  because  they 
bear  record  from  different  eras,  and  it   is   uncertain 
what  these  eras  were. 
^         The  Hebrew  MSS.  are  obtained  from  the  remotest 
countries,   from   the   Jews  in  India  and  China,  and 
'      have    the    same    text    as    in   our    Bibles.     A  large 
number  of  MSS.  have  been  described  and  examined 
by  PijTjier  and  others.      Pinner  gives  an  account  of 
several  Hebrew  MSS.  found  at  Odessa,  which  must 
be  by  several  centuries  the  oldest  known  to  exist,  if 
^   his  word  can  be  taken.      What  he   regards  as  the 
(%j'<S^  ^Cz!/^      oldest,  is  the   Pentateuch  Roll  on  leather,  which  was 
A^^o>t  ^^'^Z^^^.  brought    to    Odessa    from    Dhagristan.       The    sub- 

scription  says  that  it  was  corrected  m  580,  hence  it 
is  probably  much  older  than  that.  Another  was 
written  in  843,  another  in  881. 

The  oldest  MSS.  in  DeBi^se's  collection  were 
some  rescued  from  the  Genesa  at  Lucca,  where  the 
Jews  were  accustomed  fo  bury  their  MSS.  These 
consisted  of  fragments  of  the  Pentateuch  which  he 
supposed  to  belong  to  MSS.  of  the  eighth  century. 

The  oldest  in  Kennecott's  collection  bears  the 
date  1 01 8  A.  D.     > 

No  uniform  Hebrew  text  is  preserved  in  the 
Samaritan  letters  and  among  the  Samaritans,  though 
they  have  the  Hebrew  Pentateuch.  There  is  what 
is  called  a  Samaritari  Pentateuch,  and  there  is  a 
Samaritan  Version  of  the  Pe^itateuch.  The  first  is 
the  Hebrew  Pentateuch  written  in  Samaritan  letters, 
by  Joseph  Skaliger  of  the  sixteenth  century.  The 
first  copy  ever  seen  in  Europe  was  obtained  by 
Peter  Delaval  on  his  return  from  Palestine  in  1662, 
when  he  published  an  account  of  the  countries 
visited. 

The  Samaritans  now  consist  of  a  few  families  in 
Nablous.     They  seem  to  have   lived  in  small  com- 


>^. 


,^-f1  ^-^^     — 


^/>^^      if 


— =-— = — ^  ^  x<r» — -     '^        — ) 

^Ic^     i^^/O^     tU^     ,>..Ao     /cf^     ^(W^>V  _ 


1:^7 

munities  at  that  time.  Delaval  was  in  Damascus  in 
1616,  and  succeeded  in  purchasing  two  manuscripts, 
one  containing  the  Hebrew  text,  or  the  Samaritan 
Pentateuch,  on  parchment,  which  he  deposited  in  a 
Paris  Library;  the  other,  the  Samaritan  V^ersion  ot 
the  Pentateuch,  he  retained  himself. 

Since  this  time,  various  other  copies  of  the  Sam- 
aritan Pentateuch  have  been  obtained  by  Euro- 
pean scholars.  The  opinions  of  scholars  vary  as  to 
its  value.  Its  first  publisher,  Murinus,  vindicated 
the  claim  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  to  be  superior 
to  the  Masoretic  text ;  others  depreciate  it.  The 
strife  continued  a  long  time,  but  the  matter  is  now 
very  much  at  rest  as  to  the  main  points.  It  was 
claimed  by  Morinus  to  have  been  derived  from  the 
Pentateuchs  of  the  ten  tribes  at  the  time  of  the 
schism  of  Jeroboam  ;  the  common  opinion  now.  how^- 
ever,  is  that  it  appeared  after  the  Babylonish  exile. 
Manassas,  brother  of  the  high-priest  at  Jerusalem, 
being  threatened  with  exclusion  from  the  priest- 
hood for  marrying  a  Samaritan  woman,  fled  to  the 
temple  on  Mt.  Gerizim.  carrying  the  Pentateuch 
with  him,  and  the  modern  Samaritan  copies  are 
derived  from  this. 

In  favor  of  that  view  that  gives  the  greatest  anti- 
quity to  it,  it  was  argued  that  the  hatred  between 
the  Samaritans  and  Jews  was  such  that  they  would 
not  adopt  their  books.  It  was  further  urged  that 
the  Samaritans  received  of  all  the  books  of  O.  T.  only 
the  Pentateuch.  It  was  urged  that,  if  these  were  in 
existence  when  they  borrowed  the  Pentateuch,  they 
would  have  taken  them  likewise.  In  reply  to  this, 
however,  we  may  say  that  the  Samaritans  are  not 
the  legitimate  descendants  of  the  ten  tribes,  but 
are  rather  the  descendants  of  the  heathen  colonists 
introduced  by  the  king  of  Assyria,  after  the  ten 
tribes  were  carried  into  captivity.     The  enmity  be- 


138 

tween  the  two  was  not  a  bar  to  their  adopting  the 
books.  The  Samaritans  claimed  at  the  end  of  the 
captivity,  to  be  the  children  of  Israel,  and  offered  to 
unite  with  them  in  rebuilding  the  temple.  The  Jews 
refused  this  claim,  which  refusal  was  the  basis  of  the 
hostility  between  them.  They  renewed  their  claim 
as  often  as  it  was  to  their  interest  to  do  so.  This 
claim  was  the  ground  of  their  hatred.  Hence  the 
Samaritans  w^ould  catch  with  eagerness  anything 
tending  to  strengthen  their  claim.  Almost  every 
thing  they  had  was  borrowed  from  the  Jews.  So 
they  coveted  the  Pentateuch.  Their  reverence  for 
the  Pentateuch,  while  rejecting  the  rest  of  the  O.  T., 
cannot  be  accounted  for  by  saying  this  was  not 
written,  for  other  portions  were  in  existence  at  that 
time.  The  Samaritans  have  a  book  of  Joshua  but 
not  the  correct  one.  The  true  reason  arose  out  of 
the  nature  of  their  religious  system.  It  was  the 
same  as  that  which  led  the  heretics  of  the  early 
Christian  Church  to  reject  the  epistles  of  Paul,  &c. 
The  contents  did  not  suit  their  creed.  The  grand 
Article  of  Faith  with  the  Samaritans,  was,  that  on 
Mt.  Gerizim  everybody  should  worship,  and  not  at 
Jerusalem.  The  Pentateuch  was  altered  for  this 
purpose  in  more  than  one  place.  And  all  those 
books  which  speak  of  a  local  seat  of  God's  house 
after  the  people  were  settled  in  Canaan,  were  reject- 
ed by  them  from  the  canon  ;  but  Moses  they  could 
not  reject  The  opinion  that  it  was  derived  at  the 
schism  of  Jeroboam  has  been  given  up  for  the  rea- 
sons given.  The  period  of  the  defection  of  Man- 
assas, is  the  best  that  can  be  obtained. 

While  the  Samaritan  and  the  Jewish  Pentateuch 
agree  in  the  main,  yet  they  differ  in  several  thou- 
sand readings.  A  large  portion  consists  merely  of 
the  insertion  of  vowel  letters,  or  the  insertion  or 
omission  of  the  copulative  conjunction  or  the  article, 


139 

or  other  trifliiig  variations.  Quite  a  number,  how- 
ever, are  of  greater  consequence.  In  upwards  of  a 
thousand  readings  it  agrees  with  the  Septuagint  as 
against  the  Masoretic  text.  The  manuscripts  are 
written  with  Httle  care  and  exhibit  many  discrepan- 
cies among  themselves.  These  are  of  no  critical 
value  ;  yet  they  agree  in  many  particulars.  The 
investigations  of  Gesenius  have  shown  that  the 
great  body  were  intentional  alterations  of  the  text, 
made  for  the  purpose  of  simplifying,  etc.,  the  reasons 
for  which  can  still  be  assigned.  Gesenius  gives 
several  classes. 

1.  Grammatical  emendations;  unusual  forms 
changed  for  the  more  ordinary  ;  archaisms  avoided  ; 
want  of  agreement  between  verb  and  subject,  noun 
and  adj..  etc.,  in  very  many  cases  agreeing  with  the 
K'ri. 

2.  System  of  explanatory  glosses;  dilRcuk  words 
or  unusual  forms  of  speech  explained  ;  some  simpler 
phrase  or  word  used  without  varying  the  sense. 

3.  Conjectural  emendation  of  a  letter  or  two,  to 
improve  the  sense  and  to  remove  imaginary  difficul- 
ties. 

4.  Alterations  for  the  sake  of  conforming  to 
parallel  passages;  e.  g.,  the  father-in-law  of  Moses, 
in  Ex.  4:  18,  is  said  to  be  Jether,  which  the  Samari- 
tans make  Jethro.  The  name  of  Moses'  successor, 
which  the  Bible  occasionally  gives  in  a  different  way, 
the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  gives  as  Joshua.  In  the 
genealogies,  Gen.  11,"  and  he  died"  is  added  to  the 
name  of  every  patriarch,  as  ir^  the  fifth  chap.  When- 
ever any  names  of  the  Canaanitish  tribes  occur,  the 
Samaritan  Pentateuch  gives  all  of  them. 

5.  The  fifth  class  of  corrections  involve  still 
greater  interpolation,  where  whole  sentences,  and 
often  verses,  are  interpolated. 


Xt^y 


<^  .  M^I.^n^-.^^    1     ^'hJrv^  6^'^^~    y^'o    Xr^^^ 


141 

mate  aim  of  criticism  is  the  restoration  of  the  text  as 
it  came  from  the  hands  of  the  sacred  penman.  It 
does  not  produce  uncertainty.  It  estabhshes  the 
correctness  of  the  received  text. 

The  sources  of  textual  criticism  are  four-fold.  i. 
Manuscripts.  2.  Versions.  3.  Quotations.  4. 
Conjectures. 

1.  Manuscripts  are  liable  to  error  in  transcription. 
If  it  were  not  for  this  they  would  be  certain  evidence. 
These  errors  are  by  accident  or  design. 

(i.)  Ein'ors  by  accident.  Liability  to  error  was 
greater  formerly  than  now  Yet  even  now  enata 
are  common  in  printed  books.  They  increase  in 
arithmetical  progression  in  the  old  manuscripts. 
There  are,  (a)  errors  of  the  eye.  (b)  Errors  of  the 
ear,  one  reading  while  another  writes,  (c)  Errors 
of  memory,  causing  transposition,  omission,  inter- 
change, taking  parallel  passage,  etc.  (d)  Errors  of 
judgment.  The  erroneous  divisions  of  words  ;  mis- 
understanding abbreviations,  mistaking  syllables  for 
words,  and  marginal  remarks  for  part  of  the  text. 
( 2 . )  Ei^rors  by  design .  The  early  Christians  charged 
the  Jews  and  heretics  with  intentional  errors  ;  with 
reo[^ard  to  the  former  thev  were  crroundless.  Manu- 
scripts  were  subjected  to  intentional  alterations, 
made  to  introduce  corrections,  etc.  This  was  done 
designedly,  though  with  good  motives  ;  yet  it  was  no 
less  a  mistake. 

The  first  consideration  in  determining  the  authen- 
ticity of  a  manuscript  is  its  datej.  another,  the  care 
with  which  it  was  written,  whether  there  are  marks 
of  carelessness  ;  again,  the  gene_ral_agTeejTient  ol  the 
text  with  other  valuable  manuscripts. 

2.  The  second  class  of  critical  auth^  Titles  are  the 
ancient  versions.  By  their  critical  value  is  meant 
the  aid  they  give  in  restoring  or  setding  the  true 
text  of  Scripture  ;   their  hermeneutical  value.-  They 


142 

place  before  us  the  system  of  interpretation  adopted 

by  the  translators.     To  these  may  be  added  the  ex- 

egetical  value  of  a  version,  the  aid  which  they  render 

us^    Now  different  versions  are  of  unequal  merit  in 

these  various  respects. 

^  These   two   uses  are  quite  independent   of  each 

.j^         other.     No  version  can  have  critical  value  unless  it 

\       ■  .  is  both  andent  and  i7miiediate ;  the  older  the  better; 

ju^<yrJf^^^  the  nearer  the   fountain-head,  the  purer  the  stream. 

^-^"  Those  before  the  Masorites  are  called  a7icient.   Since 

that  time  the  text  is  the  same  as  we  have  before  us. 

Some  have  even  proposed  to  substitute  a  version 
for  the  onginal.  So  the  Council  of  Trent  did  in 
regard  to  rhe  Vulgate,  which  they  declared  authen- 
tic. None  shall  reject  it.  Some  doctors  of  the 
Romish  Church  understand  this  to  leo^itimatize  its 
use  ;  others  understand  it  to  set  aside  other  copies 
in  favor  of  this.  We  cannot  make  the  stream 
higher  than  its  source.  No  one  is  willing  to  rely 
upon  translations,  if  he  can  read  the  original. 

None  can  vie  with  the  original  Scriptures  as  being 
universally  received  and  authoritative.  No  one  has 
ever  claimed  the  Vulgate  to  be  inspired,  (i)  The 
only  grounds  would  be  that  the  original  has  become 
hopelessly  corrupt,  or  (2)  wholly  unintelligible.  For 
the  first,  it  must  be  shown  that  this  corruption  did 
not  enter  before  the  version  was  made.  As  to  the 
second,  it  must  be  shown  that  the  version  has  been 
kept  pure  itself.  It  has  been  shown  that  the  original 
tA  Scriptures  have  been  preserved  purer  than  any 
j.*jL^  other.  |  And  that  it  is   ^intelligible  without  points, 

which  are  of  human  authority. 

This  argument  is  at  fault  both  in  the  premises 
and  in  the  conclusion.  The  Hebrew  Bible_can  bg 
rea.d  without  the  points.  (  Ancient  and  valuable 
translations    may  be    used  as    helps,  but  not    sub- 


^   4^-7^^^ ^h^    ^    <^-C(^     o-''-^^''^^   '^  j^ 


9tncJ-^   jC.       €Z    <^CZ^xyy^ 


C^y>^  O-J^  5 


143 

stituted    in    its    place.     This    argument     has     been 
abandoned  by  the  greater  number. 

Versions  are  not  of  as  great  importance  as  man 
uscripts.  If  a  copy  is  taken  from  a  manuscript  and 
one  from  a  version,  the  version  would  be  one  step 
from  the  source.  Manuscripts,  therefore,  are  the 
primary  authorises  in  criticisms,  versions  of  second 
a~ry  authority^  No  new  reading  on  the  sole  author- 
ity of  versions  should  be  admitted,  though  they  may 
lend  their  aid.  It  is  necessary  to  institute  careful 
examinations  of  the  versions,  separately.  The  first 
inquiry  must  be  as  to  the  state  of  the  version  itself. 
The  work  of  the  version  depends  upon  the  accuracy 
of  the  copy  from  which  it  is  made. 

Versions  have  another  source  of  corruption  peculiar 
to  themselves,  viz.,  the  interpretation  and  correction 
of  one  version  from  another.  When  the  primary 
text  of  the  immediate  versions  has  been  obtained, 
the  question  arises,  does  it  give  a  free  or  literal 
translation  ?  If  free,  it  is  of  little  worth  to  the  critic. 
Further,  if  it  gives  a  paraphrase,  it  increases  the 
hermeneutical  value,  but  ruins  it  for  critical  pur- 
poses. For  the  aid  of  the  critic,  it  is  better  if  it 
renders  every  particle,  however  unintelligible  it 
might  be  made. 

Closely  allied  with  the  preceding  is  the  nature  of 
the  language  into  which  the  version  was  made. 
The  closer  the  affinity  between  the  languages,  the 
clearerthe  meaning,  and  the  less  the  change.  A 
versiofvin^o  Syriac  would  have  an  advantage  over 
one  into  the  Greek  or  the  Latin. 

Another  point  is  the  general  accuracy  of  the  ver- 
sions, including  the  fideHty  and  ability'  of  the  trans- 
lators. The  use  of  a  version  inTHe  criticism  of  the 
original  requires  great  caution. 

3.  Third  source  of  criticism  is  quotations  found 
in    the    early   writers.      The    first  printed    editions 


144 

known  to  have  been  taken  from  ancient  manuscripts^ 
since  lost^  are  entitled  to  credit,  corresponding  to 
their  respective  sources.  Some  internal  grounds 
arisincT  from  these  various  readinos  themselves.  The 
most  general  rule  is,  that  i^eading  which  zvill give  the 
most  satisfactory  accottnt  of  all  the  othei^s  is  p7^obably 
the  true  one.  For  this  reason  the  most  difficult  read- 
ing is  often  to  be  regarded  as  the  original  one.  Yet 
this  rule  must  be  used  with  caution.  Again,  that 
reading  which  gives  the  best  sense,  and  agrees  best  with 
the  text ;  the  style  of  the  author  also  may  furnish  a 
presumption  in  favor  of  one  reading.  An  improper 
use  has  often  been  made  of  parallel  passages. 
Copies  sometimes  give  parallel  passages  instead  of 
the  true  one.  It  is  particularly  so  with  the  Psalms. 
Discrepancies  are  often  j)roof  of  the  conscientious 
care  with  which  they  are  preserved. 

4.  Where  everything  else  fails,  recourse  must  be 
had  to  critical  conjecture.  Our  object  should  be  to 
determine  what  the  text  actually  was,  not  to  deter- 
mine what  it  might  have  been.  Our  authorities  are 
so  ample  that  critical  conjecture  is  only  to  be  re- 
sorted to  in  extreme  cases,  or  not  at  all.  This  is 
much  more  extensively  used  in  the  profane  writings. 

The  general  result  of  all  this  is   to   establish  the 

correctness^  of  the    inspired   text.     None    of  them 

'^''c(^^  materially    affect    the    inspired    text.       While    the 

-^mechanical  correctness  of  the  text  is  maintained,  its 

'    correctness  in  the  main  is  established.     There  could 

have   been   no   mutilations  before    the    time  of^the 

Saviour,  for  He  or  the  Apostles  would  have  exposed 

them.     They  charge  the  Jews   with  other  sins,  but 

not  with  this.     To  this  agrees  their  own   scrupulous 

adherence  to  the  word  of  God.  and   their  supersti 

tious  veneration  for   it.      It  has    not   been    changed 

sjnce  the  time  of  the  Saviour,  froni  the  impossibility 

of  Jews  combining  to  corrupt  them,  scattered  as  they 


--0  /  i        ■A-" 


.r^ 


145 

are  over  the  world.  Then  they  had  no  access  to 
those  in  the  hands  of  the  Christians.  ' 

""  TheTnternal  evidence  of  their  Scriptures  is  the 
same  as  the  Christians  have.  The  charges  of  this  na- 
ture made  by  the  early  Christians  seem  to  have  arisen 
from  the  veneration  in  which  the  Septuagint  was 
then  held.  While  the  Jews  were  guiltless  of  wilful 
alteration,  they  took  great  pains  to  prevent  errors, 
which  are  almost  unavoidable  m  repeated  transcrip- 
tions.  Even  the  size  of  the  letters,  position  of  the 
letters,  finals  and  medials,  etc.,  were  transmitted  from 
age  to  age,  and  so  printed  in  our  Hebrew  Bible. 
Guarding  it  thus,  they  counted  the  verses,  words, 
and  even  the  letters  of  Scripture,  marking  the  mid- 
dle word,  etc.,  showing  the  disposition  to  preserve 
them  entire. 

The  mass  of  criticism  called  the  Masora  accumu- 
lated gra3TraITyT"THe^  beginning  was  very  early.  It 
is  now  very  unwieldy.  There  are  the  Great  Masora 
and  the  Little  Masora  :  the  latter  is  an  abridgement 
of  the  former.  To  the  Masora  belong  the  K'ri  and 
the  K'thibh,  {read  and  wriHen^  referring  exchi^ively 
to  the  letters,  never  to  the  vowels.  They  are  about 
one  thousand  in  number.  The  origin  of  these 
various  readings  is  involved  in  orreat  uncertainty. 
Perhaps  from  the  collation  of  MSS.  It  seems  plain  _^  yf,  .^ 
that  all^did  not  arise  from  this  source.  Many  arose  ^^^ 
perhaps  from  a  desire  for  grammatical  uniformity. 
K'thibh  refers  to  the  original  text,  the  K'ri  is  a  gloss 
upon  it.  The  K'thibh  and  K'ri  do  not  stand  side 
by  side  as  resting  upon  independent  authority.  The 
K'thibh  was  placed  in  the  text,  and  required  it  to  be 
read  accordincr  to  the  K'ri  in  the  margin.  This 
seems  to  show  that  the  Masora  found  already  in 
existence  a  text  which  was  to  be  considered  true 
and  unalteredJThey  made  no   alterations    in   the 


Asr^^ 


lUW^ 


146 

The  first  portion  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  ever  jjripted 
was  the   Psalms,  in    1^477^  accompanied  by  a  com- 
mentary.    The  Hebrewjlble  was  printed  entire  at 
St.  Senna  in  the  ducEyof  Milan,  in  1488  ;  only  nine 
copies  of  this  are  known    to   be   in   existence.     The 
l*^a^  second  complete  edition^he  one  which  Luther  used,^ 
was  made  six  years  later.     Luther  used  it  in  making 
his  German  Bible.     By  a  Rabbi nicaLBIble  is  meant 
a  Hebrew  Bible  con_tami.ng  the  Chaldee  Targ^ums  as 
well  as  the  "Masora  and    the  commentaries  of   the 
Rabbins.     Three  editions  have  been  printed  ;  Daniel 
Vombar  in  15 18,  Buxtorf  in   161 8  (a  copy  of  which 
is  in  the  Seminary  Library,)  Amsterdam  in  1724. 
The  text  of  the  Pentateuch  was  divided  for  read- 
^nM^^      ing  in   the  Synagogue   into  54^sections  ;  these  were 
1  A^*-T     subdivided  into  669(lesseddi visions,  called^<3;r^i"^^/^. 
^  These  smaller  sections^are  some  of  them  designated 

by  the  3  or  d.     The  large  sections  are  marked  with 
three  large  s's  or  o's  ;  corresponding  are  the  les- 
sons from   the  Prophets,  the  Hafturas.     When  the 
reading  of  the  Law  was  prohibited^  the  reading  of 
the  Prophets  took  Its  place.     Chapters  are  of  Chris- 
tian  origin.     Cardinal  Hugo  first  introduced  them 
into  the  Vulgate  in  the  13th  Century.     The  division 
of  the  Bible  into  verses  is  as  old  as  the  system  of 
accents. 
^'^^^  ■^^'^^^      By  a  critical  edition  we  mean  one  having  a  jgol- 
^lLr9"-^'  ^  «^-/    lection  of  various   readings/^    The  most  noted  are 
_^'^^  those  of  How_^  begun Tn  Paris  in  17JJ  ;  and  of  Ken.- 

nicott  in  Oxford  in  1776.  i'his  last  is  made  from 
694  MSS.  De  Rosse^  a  few  years  later,  exhibited 
various  readings  from  700  MSS.  The  Polyglot  ex- 
hibits several  ancient  versions  possessing  critical 
authority.  There  are  four  principal  Polyglots; 
^^^^-^^^-''^'^^^  Complutensian  Polygdol  of  Spain.  Antwerp,  Parisi*t% 
and  London.  A  copy  of  each  is  in  the  Seminary 
Library.    The  Antwerp  edition,  or  "  Biblia  Regia," 


Date  Due 


m 


/ 


Tt 


BS1171  .G79  1889        ^    _^.,  , 

Old  Testament  canon  and  philology  :  a 


Princeton  Theological  Semmary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00043  0530 


1 

1 

■ 

1 

] 


i\ 


